William Burn's "The Back Channel" - The Finest Diplomatic Memoir I Have Ever Read

This is the best diplomatic memoir I have ever read. Informed, illuminating day-to-day events with amazing candor, including remarkably honest recognition of what the author (Burns) felt to be personal mistakes as well as those carried out by the State Department.

There were many confirmatory revelations for me.

The poorly considered and destructive impact of the expansion of NATO, the “killer” being the suggested expansion of the EU and likely then NATO to the Ukraine and Georgia. Putin and Russian’s of all stripes made it clear that this was a red line that could not be crossed.

Burns was in Moscow in 1995. He writes that Talbot as well as Secretary of Defense Bill Perry worried that starting down the road to form an enlargement of NATO would undermine hopes for a more enduring partnership with Russia undercutting reformers who would see it as a vote of no confidence in their efforts, a hedge against the likely failure of reform. “We shared similar concerns at Embassy Moscow. The challenge for us,” Burns wrote, in fall 1995, “is to look past the parent government of Russia’s often irritating rhetoric and the erratic and reactive diplomacy to our own long-term self interest. That demands, in particular, that we continue to seek to build a secure order in Europe sufficiently in Russia’s interests so that a revived Russia will have no compelling reason to revise it—and so that in the meantime the ‘stab in the back’ theorists will have only limited room for maneuver in Russian politics.” Sadly, we did not follow this advice.

For a time, we pursued the “Partnership for Peace,” a kind of NATO halfway house, but we did not pursue it aggressively, nor did Russia.

Putin’s increasing inclination to see a plot against him and Russia from almost every event, including protests about his decision to continue as president, is made abundantly clear.

Burns rightly describes Putin’s (and many Russians) intent as he writes “often as preoccupied with their sense of exceptionalism as Americans were, they sought a distinctive political and economic system, which would safeguard the individual freedoms and economic possibilities denied them under Communism, and ensure them a place among the handful of world powers.”

Burns continues with these personal words that I would echo: “I like Russians, respected their culture, enjoy their language and was endlessly fascinated by the tangled history of U.S.-Russian diplomacy.”

The history of our invidious inclination to pursue regime change is honestly described. Starting with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Iraq which Burns and most of the State Department vigorously opposed, including the war that precipitated it. He sadly writes: “Having lost the argument to avoid war, we had two main goals in shaping it and managing the inevitable risks.” They were going about “choosing between a smart way and a dumb way of bringing it (the regime change) about.” The Pentagon had taken over leadership from the State Department, together with Vice President Cheney and his office. 

The regime change went on in Libya with the overthrow of Kaddafi, not intended, but likely inevitable with the actions we took. A slippery slope it turned out to be. Not for the first time. 

Then we went on, with phone calls from Obama, telling Mubarak to step down in Egypt.

Elsewhere, Burns writes about his growing recognition of “the quality and increasing self-confidence of Chinese diplomacy.” That does not surprise me. It is exactly how I felt about Chinese leadership in the government and in business.

Burns tells the story of the negotiations which led to the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty with Iran in great detail. It was an extraordinary journey. Building of trust on both sides. Not perfect in the outcome, as Burns described it. They should have pushed for a longer period. But the best that could be obtained. This saga makes me doubly sorry that Trump pulled out of it. What a hit to our credibility, not just with Iran; but with our allies. 

Burns is brutally honest in his assessment of how he sees the state department needing to change in the future. He confesses to its being too “cautious, reactive and detached,” too bureaucratic, not effectively tied to the Hill, not adequately conveying the importance of diplomacy to the American public through illumination of the specific accomplishments it has enabled.

He advocates greater “candor and transparency (in describing)” the purpose and limits of American engagement abroad. “It is more effective to level with the American people about the challenges we face and the choices we make than to wrap them in the tattered robe of untampered exceptionalism or fan fears of external threats. Over promising and under delivery is the surest way to undermine the case for American diplomacy.”

Or anything else for that matter.

He advocates the importance of aligning our policies with “ensuring that the American middle class is positioned as well as possible for success in a hyper competitive world, that we build open and equitable trading systems, and that we don’t shy away from holding to account those who do not play by the rules of the game.”

I applaud his summation of our relationship with Russia. “A more durable 21st century European security architecture has alluded us in nearly three decades of fitful attempts to engage post-Cold War Russia that is not likely to change any time soon—certainly not during Putin’s tenure. Ours should be a long game strategy, not giving into Putin’s aggressive score settling, but not giving up on the possibility of an eventual mellowing of relations beyond him, nor can we afford to ignore the need for guardrails in managing an often adversarial relationship—sustaining communication between our militaries and our diplomats, and preserving what we can of a collapsing arms control architecture.” This is essential for the future of the world. 

I believe very much in what he wrote next. “Over time, Russia’s stake in healthy relations with Europe and Americana may grow, as a slow-motion collision with China and Central Asia looms.”

Burns’ book shares a lot of sad tales. Beyond those I have already mentioned, there is the description of the thwarted efforts to bring the Palestinians and Israelis together. Once again, Burns and most of the state department saw our policies which favored Israel and demoted the interests of Palestine as making the creation of a two-state solution unlikely to impossible. 

Here is a question which looms large to me in reading this memoir which Burns touches on but does not address directly: why were the State Department and its leaders unable to play a stronger role in making happen what they thought should happen.

To be sure, the outcomes were not totally bleak. While it has been unwound by the U.S, (but not the other signatories), the Iranian treaty was a diplomatic victory. So was the Paris Climate Treaty and, while he doesn’t talk about it at length, I’d imagine the Trans-Pacific Partnership was another. Tragically, all three of these accomplishments have been dismissed by the Trump administration. However, on other truly crucial events, the invasion of Iraq, the expansion of NATO with its impact on U.S.-Russia relations, Libya (though the state department as split on this), and Egypt, the beliefs of our most trained, experienced diplomats failed to carry the day.

One thing for sure. This argues for an extraordinarily strong Secretary of State. We had that in Jim Baker.

And that Secretary of State has to be respected by and aligned with a wise President. Again, we had that with Jim Baker and George H.W. Bush.

We need this in the next Administration. 

The Mueller Report--My Two Cents

I have spent about 3 hours reading the report. For what it is worth, here's my take:

1. It is extremely thorough and clearly presented. Balanced in its assessment.

2. While there are some redacted portions that one would like to see because of the context in which they occur, I come away believing we probably have enough information to form conclusions. 

3. The report convincingly established the direct and concerted involvement by Russia (GRU) in driving systematic interference in the 2016  Presidential election through a social media campaign favoring Trump and disparaging Clinton and by a computer-intrusion campaign against employees and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign. 

4.  While there were numerous points of contact between members of the campaign and various Russian leaders and while the members of the campaign did nothing to call attention to the Russian's interest in finding dirt on Hillary to be shared, I buy the conclusion that there is not evidence of outright collusion. 

5.  The instances of Trump trying to thwart the investigation and lying about doing it are numerous, intentional and deliberate and without pretending to render a legal judgment on criminality, they clearly show an intention by Trump to obstruct a proper investigation and therefore to obstruct justice. 

Viewed from the perspective of how I or any corporate leader would treat an executive who had done what Trump is shown to have done, the answer is clear. He/she would be terminated immediately.

Among the most flagrant actions, are these:

1. Repeated efforts made by Trump to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to remove the Special Counsel. This on top of this strong direction to McGhan to remove the Special Counsel in the first place. 

2. Trump's efforts to influence Manafort's testimony by offering him the prospect of a pardon.

3. Repeated efforts by Trump to have Sessions take control of the investigation, including by reversing his recusal, with the only logical intent being to achieve an outcome more likely to be in Trump's interest. 

4. Trump's efforts to have the investigation only concern itself with interference in future elections. 

It is hard for me to imagine facts emerging from further interviews with the principals that would materially change these conclusions.

Impeachment will not occur given the make-up of the Senate. Attempts to achieve it will not likely be productive against the main goal: getting Trump out of office in the 2020.  

I doubt if the general public will read this report in detail. 

I do not believe Trump supporters will change their  view of the situation based on any more information. 

Nevertheless, I believe that the cause of justice calls for doubling down through Congressional testimony on the one or two key areas of greatest Trump malfeasance which I would say are the interactions with McGhan. I would be focused. 

The candidates will be well served to stick as Biden has to the overall issue of character, a unifying vision for the country and the key issues such as health care and jobs and education impacting every day lives. 

Mind Opening and Challenging - Harari's 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

I’m literally amazed at the breadth of Harari’s knowledge and the number of mind-opening perspectives and insights he offers.  Some of them challenged my deepest beliefs and made me reconsider them. 

 

On the other hand, the book came to a disappointing close for me.  His final chapter on Meditation did little for me to offer a path forward that would accommodate itself to his virtual demolition of so many of the belief systems that, in many ways, he properly presents as our own mentally constructed stories.

 

As I say, there were many mind-opening perspectives for me in the book:  His illumination of the challenge that automation is going to provide to the number of meaningful jobs, the way this will impact everything from healthcare to truck drivers.  The need to, in one way or the other, do a better job of providing support to allow everyone to cover their basic needs.  The global challenge of nuclear proliferation and climate change which requires a global or near-global response.  The degree to which we overestimate the impact of terrorism, though it’s hard to mention that with what’s just happened in Sri Lanka.  (And Harari does note properly the altered dimension of the risk terrorism produced by nuclear capability.)

 

The chapters which I found most provocative and challenging were those on God and secularism.  While Harari makes the irrefutable case that it would be a supreme mistake to assert that there is only one valid religion, and while he makes the irrefutable case that many bad things have been done in the name of religion alongside good ones (and I must say, he makes this case very compellingly for every religion, including his own, Judaism), and while he acknowledges that religious beliefs have been an impetus to leading countless millions to pursue what he properly describes as the secular ethical code—a code which “enshrines the values of truth, compassion, quality, freedom, courage and responsibility,”— I believe he underestimates the degree to which religious beliefs have made the pursuit and activation of these values a reality.

 

Harari notes that the degree to which “human violence” caused human deaths has dropped significantly in modern times from up to 15% of all deaths during early agricultural periods to, he asserts, 1% today.  I personally believe that the pursuit of religious beliefs, as imperfect as that pursuit has been, may account for a significant portion of that reduction.

 

Related to this, there are two of Harari’s view that I believe, sadly, are in error.  He asserts, referring to religious beliefs, that, “We do not really need such complex, long-term theories to find an actual basis for universal compassion.”  He goes on to explain, writing that “Emotions such as greed, envy, anger, and hatred are very unpleasant.”  My marginal note on this reads:  “That’s not true for some, not always.”  

 

In the same vein, he continues, “As the last few centuries have proved, we don’t need to invoke God’s name in order to lead a moral life.  Secularism can provide us with all the values we need.”  My marginal note here reads:  “I’m not so sure.” 

 In fact, I’d go beyond that; I doubt it. 

 In theory, yes, if lived faithfully by virtually all, the secular values would carry the day.  But they aren’t going to be lived that way, because humans aren’t built that way. I believe that properly founded religious beliefs, especially for me personally as expressed in the words of Jesus, can help us live these secular values which Harari properly celebrates. In fact, Harari acknowledges this at one point. 

 

In the end, each of us comes back to try to decide how to live a meaningful, purposeful life.  I’ve reached my age knowing that I like all of us occupy a sliver of time in an amazing, bountiful universe which we’ll never fully understand.  I’ve come to believe that ultimately the difference we make will lie in whatever positive contribution we’ve been able to make to others in their journey of life, especially those we’re closest to, our family.

 

Confronting the President's Fundamental Denial of Our Nation's Basic Values

I posted this just two weeks ago after the Cohen hearings.

I re-post it today following the release of the Mueller Report which, sadly but not surprisingly, confirms what we already knew about President Trump in yet one more context.

We must return the values of truthfulness and mutual respect to the Presidency.

Confronting the President's Fundamental Denial of Our Nation's Basic Values

MARCH 7, 2019

Last week, we witnessed a dismaying but utterly unsurprising seven hours of testimony of Michael Cohen before a committee of the U.S. Congress during which he delivered a barrage of first-hand, up-close observations of President Trump’s dishonesty, lying and racism.  Cohen offered compelling evidence of President Trump’s direct involvement of repaying Cohen for paying off his mistress, even while he was in office—a violation of campaign finance law.

The insult to the Presidency and to our nation’s values which Trump represents needed no amplification.  It received it, however, in this testimony from Trump’s closest lawyer for 10 years.

As Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal of March 2-3, referring to Cohen’s testimony:  

“This is bigger than we think, and history won’t miss the import of this testimony.  None of the charges were new, precisely.  They have been made in books, investigations and interviews.  What is amazing though is that such a rebuke on the essential nature of a president and by an intimate has no equal in our history.  I don’t think, as we talk about Mr. Cohen’s testimony, we fully appreciate this.”

As I have written before, anyone who said and did the things which Trump has done—many of which he has admitted to—would have been summarily fired from any corporate or non-profit office in this nation.  Yet he remains as President, with the support of perhaps one-third of the nation’s voting public.

Some will disagree with my view that President Trump has no right to be the president of this country.  To be clear, I do not believe that an impeachable offense has yet been identified.  Nor am I saying that Trump hasn’t advocated some policies that are good for the nation.

My point is simpler.  And more important.  We are on very dangerous moral ground.  

Some will say that there have been other presidents who have done dreadful things, some of which actually led to impeachment.  That’s true.  Most recently, of course, President Clinton, who engaged in sexual acts with a young intern and then lied about it to his wife and to the nation, not once but several times.  Too many of us turned our back on that. Shame on us.  Yes, unlike Trump, he finally apologized.  But we lived with too low a standard.

We have to be careful.  We all do things that are wrong.  All of us should be granted permission to apologize and to change our ways. 

However, if Trump has apologized for what he has said and done—such as demeaning other people and lying—I have yet to hear it. That's because he hasn't said it. 

We have to resist accepting a “new normal” like the plague.  We have faced moral challenges before.  We have had moral profligates in high office before though never one of this  

magnitude and at this level. 

 In my lifetime, Joe McCarthy was the only person I’ve seen deliver such venomous, untrue accusations about other people.  Many people of good character went along with McCarthy for too long.  Over a thousand people attended his wedding in 1953, including Senator John F. Kennedy, Vice President, Richard Nixon and Alan Dulles, Head of the CIA.   For a time, even President Dwight Eisenhower turned his head.  But eventually, the screw turned.    The blinkers came off. The bombast lost its power. More and more people began to see McCarthyism for what it was—in President Truman's words: the big lie and unfounded accusation.  A political ploy that shamed without evidence.  

The final nail was struck by a cutting question during a hearing in 1954 by Council Joseph N. Welch—“"Finally, sir, have you no decency?”

Millions opened their eyes. They turned to their better natures.   McCarthy died a rejected man and McCarthyism more or less died with him.

I don’t know how long it will take for the great majority of our nation to reject the uncivil, untrue, mean-spirited and disloyal behavior of President Donald J. Trump.  But it will happen.

The members of the Republican Senate and House have a big role in its happening sooner rather than later.  I feel certain that most Republican Senators and legislators must squirm when they go home and talk with their spouses about how difficult it is for them to support a president who violates their beliefs in such fundamental ways.  Through his almost daily actions and words, he contradicts what they expect and demand of their own children.

Well beyond my lifetime, historians will dig furiously into this chapter of our nation’s history.  They will try to identify the complex origins and causes of President Trump.  I suspect most will describe it as an astounding but not unique aberration in our history. They will write about it much as most historians write today about Andrew Johnson's presidency, the internment of Japanese citizens during WWI, the Dredd Scott decision, the Plessy-Ferguson decision and other chapters of our history which demonstrate that, despite our ideals, we sometimes get things very wrong. 

I believe the American people will eventually get this right. Why?  Because the great majority of the American public believe in the values of truthfulness, of mutual respect and of empathy.  We don’t always practice them.   In that, we are human.  But we have a moral compass.  We have it in our homes and with our families.  That we must never lose. With new leadership and the determined will of each of us as voters, we will return to it again in our Presidency. That is our highest responsibility to the future of our nation.  

Tiger Woods at the Masters--A Win Carrying Many Morals

I woke up very early Monday morning vividly recalling Tiger Woods striding up the fairway, a picture of unflappable, stoic discipline, red shirt, cap on, he looked no more than 30.

Striking his iron shot which slowly but surely curled to four feet from the hole on the 71st; the birdie followed.

Tapping in for a safe bogey to win by one stroke on the 72nd hole; millions roared. Off with his cap, revealing graying hair and the reality that, yes, this man is in his 40's.

Walking briskly to hug his young son and daughter and his mother with unbridled joy and love as we were reminded by TV footage of how he had hugged his now deceased father when he won this same tournament in 1997.

These are pictures in my mind. You may have your own.

For me, there is a good deal wrapped up in this win by Tiger Woods.

It is a story of redemption, as he came back incredibly from the physical and personal setbacks of the last 15 years.

It is a story of persistence and courage. .How many people could have survived four back operations and come back to win this tournament against players almost two decades younger?

It is a story of stamina and resolve. The practice was unending:  Even yesterday, Woods got up at 3:45 AM  to prepare for a 9 o'clock tee time.  The margin of victory was incredibly small: one stroke out of 275: less than 1%. Such is the difference between being first and second.

It is a story of forgiveness, as millions of fans, indeed the general public, looked past his earlier self-admitted personal mistakes to not only cheer him on but share in the joy of his recovery.

It is a story of artistic excellence. Great performance in golf seems to me to deserve the descriptive "artistic excellence". It requires a special combination of sheer talent and strength, finesse and boldness and discipline . And we observe all these things, as they happen in the instant stroke snd flight of the ball and then as we observe how the player reacts,  emotionally and physically, as he goes on to  next shot.

Perhaps most simply, it is a story of how the world loves a hero,  especially a come-back hero, a hero who shows his humanity and love of family, especially today when cynicism and examples of flawed standards surround us. Stories like this remind of what is possible and in their own way of what we at our best can accomplish.

A Book That Spoke to Me on Many Levels: "Becoming" by Michelle Obama

One of the finest memoirs I have ever read.  And already reputed to be the #1 bestseller of all memoirs ever.

I relished it for its candor, intimacy and plain-spokenness.

It is the kind of memoir my wife, Francie, would write if she brings the time to it.

In many ways, it reminds me of Francie.

Here are a few of the insights Michelle offered which I found moving.

Referring to her mother she writes “she loved us consistently but we were not over-managed.  Her goal was to push us into the world.  ‘I’m not raising babies, I’m raising adults.’  She and my dad offered guidelines rather than rules.  It meant that as teenagers we would never have a curfew.”  

Just like Francie with our children.

There is this luminous description of the challenges minority students face.  “Minority and under-privileged students rise to the challenge all the time but it takes energy.  It takes energy to be the only black person in a lecture hall or one of the few non-white people trying out for a play or joining an intramural team.  It requires effort, an extra level of confidence, to speak in those settings and own your presence in the room.”  This is why, Michelle writes, that she and other black young people relish the opportunity to be with other black people.  They felt comfortable, safe.

I admire the openness with which Michelle reveals her relationship and marriage to Barack.

At one point she wrote in her journal “I am so angry at Barack.  I don’t think we have anything in common.”  

She writes that they had to pursue marriage counseling, and it helped!  “Like any newish couple, we were learning how to fight.  We didn’t fight often, and when we did, it was typically over petty things..but we did fight.  And for better or worse, I tend to yell when I’m angry.”

I guess every couple has its "fights". It's our underlying love and respect which keep us together. 

Like Francie, Michelle was very confident, conscious of the stereotyped role of being a “wife.”  She writes, “wife” can feel like a loaded word.  It carries a history.  If you grew up in the 60s and the 70s, as I did, wives seemed to be a genus of white women who lived inside television sitcoms—cheery, coiffed, corseted.  They stayed at home, fussed over the children, and had dinner ready on the stove.”

Michelle pushed back against that. She did so much good in so many career undertakings.

Michelle is honest in saying how as a Senator’s wife she began to feel sublimated “at the heart of my confusion (in Washington) was a kind of fear, because as much as I hadn’t chosen to be involved, I was getting sucked in.  I had been Mrs. Obama for the last 12 years, but it was starting to mean something different.  At least in some spheres, I was now Mrs. Obama in a way that could feel diminishing, a Mrs. defined by her Mr." 

That sounds very familiar. 

Michelle had a revealing and in many ways chilling experience during the campaign when she was asked to look at the talks she was giving without any sound, just the visual.  What she saw was that she was “too serious, too severe.”  She needed to lighten up.  Examining how we look without the sound can be very instructive. I found that to be true as I looked at myself giving talks. 

As First Lady, Michelle knew she would be measured by a different yardstick.  She found herself as she had before “suddenly tripped by doubt.  Confidence, I learned then, sometimes needs to be called from within.  I have said the same words to myself many times now, through many climbs.  Am I good enough?  Yes I am.”

Toward the end of her memoir, Michelle writes in a way that articulates my own experience:  “The important parts of my story lay less in the surface value of my accomplishments and more in what undergirded them—the many small ways I had been buttressed over the years, and the people who helped build my confidence over time.  I remembered them all, every person who had ever waved me forward.”  

For me, there have been so many.  I recorded many of them in my paper, “If It Weren’t For Them,” and there are many more I have met since writing that paper. I have been lifted by the confidence of others, above all Francie. 

Michelle goes on:  “My early successes in life were, I knew, a product of the consistent love and high expectations with which I was surrounded as a child, both at home and at school.  I had been lucky to have parents, teachers and mentors, who had fed me with a consistent simple message:  you matter.”

Magic words--as my daughter punctuated them for me--"YOU MATTER". 

Underlying Drivers for the Brexit Controversy in the UK and "Trumpism" in America

“The Road to Somewhere:  The New Tribes Shaping British Politics” – by David Goodheart

An insightful, penetrating book analyzing the cleavage between different groups in Britain (the so-called “tribes”) which account for Brexit.

Goodheart sums up the cleavage by describing the two tribes as “Anywheres” and “Somewheres,” denoting the relative contrast between the commitment to a global-European world view contrasted to a commitment that is more locally, nationalistic, and family-driven.

The cleavage he talks about also fairly describes a fundamental difference, in my view, between Trump supporters and Trump haters.

He analyzes the several key factors of differentiation.  They include ones' relative commitment to free trade, to immigration, to family, and the depth of one’s commitment to his or her nation. 

It was an eye-opener for me to realize how the ECM has evolved from initially being essentially a tariff-free customs union to what became the common economic space of a single market with the unified Euro currency (Maastricht in 1992) and the provision that the citizen of every European country is a citizen of every other European country. Particularly with the expansion of the ECM to Eastern and Central Europe, this resulted in a massive increase in immigration to Germany and to Britain. Thus immigration became the underlying issue which probably drove the positive Brexit vote.

The political elite, better educated and higher income, failed to recognize and adequately respect the views of those who felt they were being left behind by this high rate of  immigration. They also felt decisions which should be made at the national level had been abrogated by a very loosely formed and weakly governing European administrative structure.

Goodheart develops his analysis and argument in very insightful terms.  For example, asserting “the moral equality of all humans is taken by many Global Villagers to mean the national borders and boundaries have become irrelevant and that any partiality to one’s fellow nationalist is morally flawed.  But this is two completely separate things.  It does not follow from the idea of human equality that we have the same obligations to all humans.”  

We must recognize that “all humans are equal but they are not all equally important to us; our obligations and allegiances ripple out from family and friends to stranger fellow citizens in our neighborhoods and towns, then to nations and finally to all humanity.  This does not have to be a narrow or selfish idea.  People from Somewhere can be outward looking and internationalist, generous in their donations to charity..and concerned about the progress for the world’s poor countries but they also think it is perfectly reasonable that most European countries put their own citizens first and spend about 10 times more every year on domestic health services than on development aid."

Nor is this kind of particularism morally inferior to the more universalist views of some “Anywheres.”  If everyone is my brother, then nobody is—my emotional and financial resources are spread too thin to make a difference.  The novelist Jonathon Franzen puts it like this:  “Trying to love all of humanity may be a worthy endeavor but, in a funny way, it keeps the focus on the self, on the self’s own moral or spiritual well-being.  Whereas to love a specific person, and to identify with his or her struggles and joys as if they were your own, you have to surrender some of yourself.”

I cannot imagine it being said better than this.  

There are good reasons why we should resist an overly atavistic sense of “exceptionalism” when it comes to the pride we take in our nation.  We have a history loaded with events (slavery, treatment of the Native American) that we cringe at even as we recognize the reality such is the sad stuff of human history. However, that should not mask or discredit the rightness of having a strong, confident national identity.  That in itself won’t solve our social and economic problems but it provides a set of values through which discussion can take place.  It assumes certain shared norms and interests.

We have such a template perhaps greater than any other nation in the world in the founding words of the Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Even as imperfectly lived, this commitment calls on us to do what we think is right based on all we have learned over time.