A Man Forgotten Joseph Davies—Lessons for Us All

 

Joseph Davies was the second ambassador to the Soviet Union, serving from 1936-38.  He was 49 at the time; a practicing lawyer, defending companies against the government, quite successfully, most prominently the Ford Motor Company, which had been charged by the government with the requirement to pay back multi-millions.  The government lost that case and ended up paying Ford several millions, resulting in the largest fee to a lawyer in history at that time.

I just finished reading his book, Mission to Moscow, published in 1941.  It was very popular, selling 700,000 copies.  

His description of the Soviet Union was deep, based on extensive travel orchestrated by the Soviet government.  There is no doubt that he, like many other people, was taken by being “close to power.”  He and his wife, Marjorie, were treated with careful and, from all appearances, sincere hospitality by President Litvinov and other officials.

He offered accolades to the Soviet government on the progress it had made during Stalin’s first five-year plan.  Indeed, it was impressive, whether measured in infrastructure (e.g., railroads), building K-12 schools or universities, etc.  

Davies’ attempted to bring “objectivity” to his task but I believe  he far too kind in looking past the atrocities which were going on in his sight, including the “Trial of 20,” in which the defendants pled guilty (David felt genuinely; others weren’t so sure).

Davies was convinced, and in this I believe he was right, that there was a genuine affinity between Russian leadership, Russian people and the U.S.

He was convinced that “there were no conflicts of physical interest between the United States and the U.S.S.R….nothing that either has which is desired by or could be taken by the other.”  

The U.S.S.R.’s fear of Germany was high; no less was its fear of Japan.  As has been the case throughout its history, including in recent years, the U.S.S.R. felt under attack.  It felt betrayed by Britain and other Western European countries as they “gave in” to Hitler’s demands, step by step.  Both Stalin and Davies could see the ultimate outcome.  Davies, presciently, warned President Roosevelt and the U.S. State Department that, unless they provided strong support for the U.S.S.R., there was every likelihood it would get into bed with Germany to protect itself.  It was also clear to Davies before Germany’s attack on Poland that it would try to find a way to take the threat of a two-front war off the table by establishing a treaty with Russia, which, of course, is exactly what happened.  

Davies was too sanguine—as I have been, too—in forecasting the future development of the U.S.S.R./Russia.  He writes:  “In my opinion, there is no danger from Communism, so far as the United States is concerned.  To maintain its existence, the Soviet government has to continue to apply capitalistic principles.  Otherwise, it will fail and be overthrown.  That will not be permitted by the men presently in power, if they can avoid it.”

He expected the government to move “to the right in practice, just as it has for the past eight years.  If it maintains itself, it may evolve into a type of Fabian socialism with large industry in the hands of the state, with the agricultural and smaller businesses and traders working under capitalistic, property and profit principles.”

He was right in what would happen to large industry; dead wrong in what happened to agriculture and the peasantry.

In the end, it can be argued he was proven right, with Perestroika introduced by Gorbachev and what followed, Russia has moved to a more “capitalistic” economic form.  But it did so in a robber baron fashion, with the government (Putin) maintaining strong autocratic control of the kind Russia has embraced since the time of the tzars.

Following his return from his assignment in Russia and then later Belgium and Luxembourg, writing in 1941 just after Pearl Harbor, Davies offered this, addressing the concern that, in aiding Russia we might be creating a greater danger than Nazi Germany.  “I shall mince no words,” he wrote, “certain Hitler stooges have been trying to frighten us into the belief that Communism would destroy our form of government if the Soviet Union defeats Hitler.  That is just plain bunk.  It is bad medicine.  It is as unintelligent as it is unpatriotic and un-American.”  Hitler had declaimed:  “Peace of the world depends upon the domination of the world by the German race.”  

That said it.  Davies recognized correctly that “the government, the people and the armies of the Soviet Union stand between us in this fate (of being defeated by the Nazis).”  Correct in his emphasis on priorities, Davies was far too sanguine, indeed naïve, in not recognizing the threat of Communism, distant though it was.  

Davies’ naïve optimism, which was the outgrowth, I believe, of getting very close to a people and culture he had come to love, is perhaps best summarized by this:  “It is bad Christianity, bad sportsmanship, bad sense to challenge the integrity of the Soviet government.  Premier Stalin has repeatedly told the world that the Soviet government seeks no territory in this war.  It does not seek to impose its will on other people.  It fights only to liberate its own people and to give all people now enslaved by Nazi, fascist, or Japanese dictators the right to self-determination.  The Soviet government has a record of keeping its treaty obligations equal to that of any nation on earth.”  

Davies totally discounted the “so-called menace of Russian Communism” to American institutions.  “I cannot see it,” he wrote, “our soil is not friendly to or ready for its seeds.  Conditions certainly are not ripe for it yet, nor are conditions even possible to conceive that would be so bad, so desperate, as to cause our people to turn to Communism as a relief.  We know our system of life and society is the best yet devised by man.”

In that statement he was, of course, right.  And the threat of Communism was never as great as was broadcast by folks like Joe McCarthy in the late ‘40s and early ‘50s.  But it was a threat well beyond what Davies envisaged.  

It’s easy to criticize Davies in retrospect.  Yet, others, most prominently Winston Churchill, had a more realistic view.  I think Roosevelt did, too, though not one as clear as Churchill.  This is an example of how all too easy it is for highly intelligent people of good will to underrate the hidden duplicitous ambitions and intentions of some people pretending to want good will and hold a commitment to peace far different than they harbor.  On the other hand, there is another risk, probably equally dangerous.  And that  is to attribute malicious motivations to other people which they do not hold, at least to the degree we assert or fear.  These convictions and the actions they lead to can, tragically, actually bring us or our countries on to the collision course which both want to avert.  

In large measure, this was a driving force in the start of World War I.  I fear in some measure, it characterizes our attitude and relations with China and Russia today.  Food for careful thought.

Davies is a forgotten man today.  Testimony to the humility with which we should pursue our lives-- realizing even more that the most important thing we can do is try to make a positive difference along the journey of life to people whose lives we touch.

THE FIGHT AGAINST POLIO—THE SANCTITY OF SCIENCE AND RECOGNIZING WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT

 I just finished listening to a mesmerizing podcast hosted by Jon Meacham on the battle against polio.  I can recall this vividly from my youth, sitting in movie theaters and having the cup passed for our nickels and dimes, seeing a video of Margaret O’Brien, suffering from polio herself, in an iron lung, on the screen.

I almost didn’t listen to this podcast.  I already knew the story, or so I thought.  But I didn’t.  There is so much to be drawn from it as we tackle the threat of Covid-19 today..

The importance of respecting science.  The need for patience. It took decades to find the polio vaccine and have it expanded to be available to everyone in the country and the world.  It took resources, it took philanthropy, it took private drug firms working together, as they are today and did later in finding penicillin.  It took public/private partnership.  And it took focus.  And it took leadership, importantly, which I had not known or forgotten, in this case, the leadership of President Roosevelt who himself had contracted polio at the age of 39.  It left him unable to walk on his own for the rest of his life.

It tells the story of the two scientists who found different paths to the vaccine:  Albert Sabin and Jonah Salk.  Both sons of immigrants, Salk’s parents from Russia, Sabin’s from Poland.

The March of Dimes raised more money during the late ‘40s and ‘50s than any other charity in the United States other than the Red Cross.  It was rolled out officially in 1954 by President Eisenhower.  Eisenhower was known for what he called “my scientists.”  

We’ve lost some of this faith and facts, in science.  A respect for it.  President Trump  has denigrated the role of scientists, disputed their findings.  

The win over polio did not come easily.  While Roosevelt always made fundraising for the March of Dimes his focus on his birthday, there were some Republicans who wrote they would give to the March of Dimes on any other day than the President’s birthday.

The fear of polio impacted parents and grandparents just the way the fear of Covid-19 does today.  Many parents took their children away from the city during the summer, a particularly draconian period for the disease.

The scale of death from polio was small compared to what we are seeing from Covid-19, but it affected the young in a particular way that Covid-19 does not.  At its height, there were 40,000+ cases a year and deaths of 3,000+.

We can’t know the future of Covid-19, the path it will take, how long it will take to have a vaccine that works the way the polio vaccine does.  But we can take hope from history.  And we can learn what were the key elements which led to success.  Science.  Resources.  Everyone working together.  Philanthropy.  Public/private partnership.

Interestingly, the polio vaccine was never patented.  When asked if he would patent it, Salk responded, “The public holds the patent.”  He likened patenting the vaccine to patenting the sun.

My Faith and Hope in Joe Biden

I am counting on Biden. To pull the Nation together. Over the last month,  I  have developed far deeper confidence and faith  in him. In his mind and heart. He is a decent man; a man of character; a man with great experience. I believe he knows what needs to happen. He knows he needs to unite this country. Heal our wounds, bridge our separateness. He has suffered the worst possible personal pain. He has come through it. He has lived his life for this moment. Much as Winton Churchill It is his moment; his responsibility. He knows this. It is why he is running. 

He will be thinking of Beau and a whole lot more that we will never know. He has a loving wife at his side. This was made even more evident by her magnificent reflections during the Democratic Convention.  

Biden's acceptance speech was everything I hoped for.  He was crystal clear on what is at stake in this election—the character or as Biden rightly states "the soul of our Nation", His speech was filled with hope and empathy and the commitment to unify our country. 

 To that end, I hope and pray he includes Cabinet members and other senior advisers who represent diverse views and from across the aisle. Lincoln did that in 1860; Churchill did it too in 1940. 

We have been through worse as a country. We always have depended on great leadership in our most challenging moments. I believe we are about to be graced by such leadership at this critical moment. 

2020 - Confronting Reality and the Demand for Change

2020 – THE YEAR OF CONFRONTING REALITY; THE YEAR THAT OFFERS THE POTENTIAL AND THE DEMAND FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGE

I’ve just finished reading the book, How to be an Anti-Racist, by Ibram X. Kendi, and watching the movie, 13^th.

In a way, it’s hard to imagine an encounter with a book and a film opening my mind in as significant and challenging a way to my views on racism, having lived this subject and thought about it and labored in it for close to 50 years.  But these two interactions have had that effect.  

For me, it has taken off the table any notion that a “color blind” or “race neutral” approach to confronting the racial divide that exists in this country will be adequate to the challenge.  

The only thing that will make a difference, and this will be very hard, is changes in policy which can happen through the exercise of power—political power, corporate power, grassroots power.  

This is not really a new discovery.  It was only the civil rights laws and the voting rights laws of the 1960s that made a difference, and even that has been only a partial difference and one subject to erosion.

Racial bias is deep and enduring.  It will not go away.

Eyes have been opened as never before to the deep inequities that exist racially.  COVID-19 and the racial protests surrounding George Floyd’s death are doing that.  We are witnessing a rallying of Whites together with Blacks in protesting inequities in policing and criminal conduct that I believe can, if sustained, result in substantive policy change.

The biggest challenge lies in changing the distribution of income and wealth.  This affects the poor, particularly Black, but people of every race and color.

The gulf in income and wealth between the top 20% and 1% and the bottom 50% (pick the percentages as you wish) is growing larger, not smaller.  COVID-19 and its economic consequences will make this gap grow larger, not smaller.  The new administration, which I trust will be led by Joe Biden, is going to have to take decisive steps in income distribution and inheritance policy.  As Kendi summarizes:  “Individual behaviors can shape the success of individuals.  But policies determine the success of groups.  And it is racist power that creates the policies that cause racial inequities.”

I drew many points from this book and film which opened my mind and some that challenged me.  In particular:

1. Reassessing my commitment to and call for the integration of Whites and Blacks.  I have sometimes lamented how Blacks separate themselves to be on their own.  I now see this evinces a certain disrespect and lack of appreciation for the natural desire of Blacks to share their culture and friendships with one another.  No one would criticize Whites for getting together as a group, drinking beers after a golf game, at a bar.  To be clear, my motivation for desiring the coming together of Blacks and Whites in sustained relationships is based on my own experience on the best way for White people to come to appreciate the individuality of individuals who happen to be Black.  “Individuality,” including all their personal qualities. I still hold to this view—strongly.  But I have to acknowledge a watch-out in this and it contains an element of racism.

At Yale, as I saw Black students sitting together in dining rooms, I did not see “these spaces,” as Kendi describes them, as ones of  simple and understandable.cultural solidarity.  “Integrationists think about them as a movement away from White people,” Kendi writes.

2. The film, 13^th, presents this remarkable analogy.  A monopoly game that has gone on for almost 500 years.  Blacks were allowed to be at the table for the first 400 years, even as slaves.  But everything they made in the game was not theirs.  It was turned over to their competitor, White people.  Then, during the last years of the game, running up to today, they were allowed to keep something, but less than the White people and too often, when they were successful, they were attacked, as Blacks were in the Tulsa riots in the early part of the 20^th century.  

Now comes the clincher.  Blacks are asked to play Monopoly today.  They’re told they are starting out with the same stakes as the White people.  They’re “free” now, so there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to compete equally.  But no account is taken that their White competitors have, over the course of time, accumulated lots of houses and hotels; they’ve been able to take possession of the key properties like Boardwalk and Park Place.   Some equal opportunity!  

While I think it may be changing at this moment—I hope so—there has been a huge cleavage in opinion between Whites and Blacks in the belief that the country has made the changes needed to give Blacks equal rights with Whites.  For example, in a survey of nearly 8,000 police officers in 2017, nearly all (92%) of White officers agreed with the post-racial idea that “our country has made the changes needed to give Blacks equal rights with Whites.”  Only 6% of White officers agreed with the idea that “our country needs to continue making changes to give Blacks equal rights with Whites” compared to 69% of Black officers.

3. I’ve become even more aware of the burden Black people are asked to play.  You’re expected to exhibit “good Black behavior” in order to make White people “less racist.”  In other words, Blacks feel they have to prove something, not just about themselves but about their race.

At the same time, they carry the burden for exhibiting to their Black friends that they have not left their Black heritage and Black culture behind.  

As I reflect—how often have I looked at an outstanding Black man or woman, and I’ve known so many, and think of them as a model of their race?  Yes, I’ve done that.  

How often, on the other hand, do I look at a White person whom I value and think of them as an outstanding representative of the White race?  Never.

So, a racist lens does affect my view, even at this ripe age of 81.

Kendi concludes with some very important points that I had not thought about in the way he presents them.  

“Moral and educational suasion breeds the assumption that racism minds must be changed before racist policy, ignoring history that says otherwise.  Look at the soaring White support for desegregated schools and neighborhoods decades after the policies changed in the 1950s and 1960s.  Look at the soaring White support for interracial marriage decades after the policy changed in 1967.”

“To fight for mental and moral changes after policy is changed means fighting alongside growing benefits and the dissipation of fears, making it possible for anti-racist power to succeed.  To fight for mental and moral change as a prerequisite for policy changes to fight against growing fears and apathy makes it almost impossible for anti-racist power to succeed.”

“Changing minds is not a movement.  Critiquing racism is not activism.  Changing minds is not activism.  An activist produces power and policy change, not mental change.”

I join this line of reasoning only to a point.  I believe it is important to simultaneously work to change minds even as we change policies. 

When it comes to diversity and inclusion, this is what has always led me to start with the mandate, “Make diversity happen now, in your own circle of influence.”  For it is as it happens that people experience the benefits of diversity they also come to see the rumored dangers that they might have suspected are fables.

Kendi is no Pollyanna optimist.  Nor am I.  He says, and I agree, before we can treat racism, we must “believe in the possibility that we can strive to be anti-racist from this day forward.  Racist power is not godly.  Racist policies are not indestructible.  Racial inequities are not inevitable.”

He makes the point that “race and racism are power constructs of the modern world.  For roughly 200,000 years, before race and racism were constructed in the 15^th century, humans saw color but had not grouped the colors into continental races, did not commonly attack negative and positive characteristics to those colors and rank the races to justify racial inequity, to reinforce racist power and policy.”

He is right, certainly as he talks about institutional slavery and racism.  But there is no mistaking the tendency of the human race, over time and to this current day, to separate ourselves from “others,” defined by race, yes, but defined in other terms—religious beliefs, ethnicity and other differentiators.  In the end, our task is to view every person as an individual, appreciate them for their differences, see the world as best we can through their eyes, recognize that our DNA structures are 99.9% the same and, if we hold to a religious belief, as I do, that we are all children of God.

I close by recommending you consider reading Kendi's book or watching the documentary "13". 

Moral Numbness Leads to the Abandonment of Moral Principle

“WE ALREADY KNEW THAT!”

Moral numbness leads to the abandonment of moral principle

In reading Brett Stephens’ review of John Bolton’s new book, The Room Where It Happened, I was reminded of one of the most gut-wrenching experiences in my youth.  I was 7 or 8.  I had a pet turtle.  I placed it in a bowl with a rock it could rest on surrounded by water.  The room that day was cold, so I decided to put the bowl on a radiator to give the turtle some needed warmth. The next morning, the turtle was dead.  The temperature had gradually risen.  It killed him.

This well-worn analogy, unforgettable in my mind seventy-five years after it happened, applies to the Trump presidency and to Stephens’ review of Bolton’s book. 

John Bolton writes that Trump’s Ukraine quid pro quo discussions with the President was “bad policy, questionable legally, and unacceptable as presidential behavior.”  Stephens' response: "We knew that."

Bolton writes that Vladimir Putin “had to be laughing uproariously at what he had gotten away with in Helsinki.”  But we knew that, too.  

He writes that for Trump, “Obstruction of justice (is) a way of life.”  We knew that, too. And, so, on it goes. One "head-shaking" divisive and denigrating tweet or action after another. 

I asked one of my Trump-supporting friends, “Do you believe what John Bolton is telling in this book will change people’s minds about whether to vote for Trump?”  His answer was, “Probably not. Everyone already knew all of that.” 

Think back to the history of our country.  Would the by now well-supported allegations being made about President Trump, not just by Bolton but by many others, be accepted with a shrug of the shoulders and a “we knew that?”  Of course not. 

We’ve long known that moral standards of behavior cannot be taken for granted.  It’s a slippery slope.  A company can pledge itself to never giving a bribe, but then can be tempted to give a small facilitation gift to get something done and, sure enough, that small “facilitation gift” can  become bigger, and bigger.  You've crossed the line.  And as others in the organization see it happening, they start to believe that the controlling mandate is to make the end goal happen, no matter what the means.  

This is a dangerous, frightening and treacherous development in our Nation.   We are on the way to moral numbness through the repeated violation, at first perhaps seemingly small, of moral standards of truth and of common decency.  What does this lead to? It leads to the abandonment of moral principle and the commitment to truth. It leads to cynicism and to the corruption which inevitably follows. 

That’s what’s been happening in this country under the Presidency of Donald J. Trump. 

This risk of moral corruption didn’t begin four years ago.  It will always be a risk in human nature.  However, Donald Trump has brought it to an unprecedented level. This represents a grave danger for our Nation.

Bret Stephens cites an essay in The Atlantic by Ann Applebaum which draws on the inspiration of Czeslaw Milosz’s The Captive Mind, to shed light on the roots of this human tendency.  There is the relief and pleasure of political conformity, there is the allure of power or proximity to it and there can be a profit motive.  

I believe one or more of these attitudes explain how almost every Republican senator is justifying not speaking out against Trump:  “I am doing everything I can privately to alter his behavior where it needs to be altered,” they explain.  “Coming out publicly would not lead to a good outcome.  And while here, in the Senate, I will be pushing for legislation which is good for the American people.”

Understandable responses?  "Yes."  Responses which are helping to enable  President Trump's immoral behavior to continue unchallenged and thereby grow stronger?  Absolutely, "yes." This represents a frightening threat to our Nation's future. 

In the first week of November, every voter will face a stark question,  “Am I willing to continue to condone the moral behavior of Donald J. Trump through my vote?   Or is his behavior and the character which it portrays so out of line, so against what I believe is right personally and what is right for my family and for our Nation that I will vote to remove him from office?”

I pray and trust that a great majority of Americans will vote to remove Donald Trump from office.

Doing so will validate and affirm for time immemorial that there are certain moral principles which dare not be transgressed and which cannot be taken for granted and which cannot be tolerated in the leader of any organization, let alone the Presidency of the United States. It will affirm that the values of integrity and common decency reign supreme and that personal character is non-negotiable. 

The Pharmaceutical Industry

PHARMA:  GREED, LIES AND THE POISONING OF AMERICA BY GERALD POSNER
ner 

This is a blistering indictment of the pharmaceutical industry focused especially on the deadly scandal of OxyContin and the Sackler family which pulled it off.

There aren’t many heroes in this book and villains abound.  The Sackler’s, of course; weak-kneed administrators in the FDA; and Rudy Giuliani, who ended up being the Sackler’s lawyer after he had the mayor position in New York.

It’s amazing to me how I failed to penetrate the severity of the opioid OxyContin crisis.  By 2015, opioid prescription rates were triple the number dispensed in 1999.  Enough OxyContin was prescribed that year to medicate every American for nearly a month, and it killed more people than had fatal car crashes and guns combined; 52,000.

The claims made on label and in detailing OxyContin were plain lies and the executives knew it.  Seventy-five percent of the $400 million spent on marketing OxyContin came after the year 2000, when executives first acknowledged knowing about the abuse.  

The premise of OxyContin’s differentiated position was that it would last for 12 hours and did not require repeat dosage as other similarly effective pain relievers did.  It counted on its slow-release coating to achieve that.  They also claimed that the slow-release coating meant that it would not produce the “highs” that could lead to addiction.  This claim was made despite the fact that a third of the subjects in their trials needed another dose to offset pain before 12 hours expired.  Not only that, addicted people learned to scrape the delayed coating off the tablet to get a quicker release and a high.

The Sackler’s made billions off OxyContin.  Particularly staggering to me was the fact they continued to promote the drug illegally after they had made a full-throated confession of guilt and had signed a consent order with the FDA in 2007.

The case that will determine how much money they will end up paying is still in the courts.  Nobody has gone to jail, despite all these deaths.

Stepping back, "Pharma" is not a well-balanced history of the pharmaceutical industry.  While it does, in the early pages, give credit to the breakthroughs that occurred in penicillin and other antibiotics, it does not step back and appraise the life-extending benefits and life-improving relief which pharmaceuticals have enabled.  

It does leave no doubt that a large part of the higher cost of pharmaceuticals in the U.S. is due to pharmaceutical benefit firms.  These middlemen are soaking up significant amounts of money.  This doesn’t happen in other universal healthcare plans in other countries.  It also illuminates the challenge posed by “orphan drugs,” often ones with very small differentiated claims, that enable an extension of patents for years.  Seven of the top ten selling pharmaceuticals as this book was written were orphan drugs.  

Posner also does a good job of pointing out the risk that we have of antibacterial resistant strains developing because antibiotics are being prescribed far too often for conditions that don’t warrant it.

*********************************************

Posner may have ended his play one scene too soon: before the covid-19 crisis. He salutes the pharmaceutical industry for pooling their research on penicillin in the 1940s leading to the mass availability of the drug by the latter part of WWII, thereby saving tens of thousands of lives. The same opportunity for pharmaceutical companies to pool their research findings and supply chain capability exists today.. Doing so is vital to achieve the equitable distribution of the vaccine once it is proved. 

Reflections on Jon Meacham's Biography of Thomas Jefferson

May 21, 2020

JON MEACHAM’S THOMAS JEFFERSON:  THE ART OF POWER

 This magnificent biography ranks among the three or four finest I’ve ever read.  Alongside it I would put Robert Caro’s multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson, David McCullough’s biography of Truman and David Blight’s biography of Frederick Douglass.  

I’m going to break my reflections and excerpts from the book into two groups, the first being new insights and the second being personal beliefs strongly reinforced.  

New Insights

1. Jefferson and many of his peers saw a constant threat to the United States still newly acquired freedom from Britain and, to a lesser extent, from France.  This is the context in which we have to view his life starting in 1765 all the way through to 1815 and the Treaty of Ghent, which concluded the War of 1812.  

The controversies with Britain were many:  impressment of U.S. ships seeking British sailors, alliances which Britain made (or was felt to make) with Native Americans, possible encroachment from British-held Canada and more.  

For most of his political career, Jefferson was tightly aligned to France.  He was there as the country’s emissary in the 1880s.  He loved it.  

2. There was unending enmity between the two parties, the Federalists and Republicans, and their leaders, particularly Adams and Hamilton for the Federalists.  

Jefferson greatly feared the tendencies he saw in Adams to want to re-establish the vestiges of monarchy.  He felt Hamilton, quite correctly, was intent on forming a much stronger central government.  Witness the U.S National Bank.  Jefferson was strongly in favor of popular democracy and while at times pragmatically flexible on the point (e.g., his bold decision to carry out the Louisiana Purchase), he favored states’ rights.  His acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase was carried out through executive order, though it was eventually approved by the Senate.  He had considered calling for a constitutional amendment but correctly saw that this could delay the purchase and that Francie might have second thoughts. 

To amplify on the party and personal divisions.  When they were both members of the cabinet, Jefferson wrote that he and Hamilton were now “daily pitted in the Cabinet like two cocks.”  President Washington lamented this:  “How unfortunate and how much it is to be regretted that, whilst we are encompassed on all sides with avowed enemies and insidious friends that internal dissentions should be harrowing and tearing our vitals.”  

Jefferson’s view of the Federalists makes the point:  “their leaders are a hospital of incurables and, as such, entitled to be protected and taken care of as other insane persons are.”

Still, before becoming president, he expressed contemptuousness for politicians who held themselves above party.  “A few individuals of no fixed system at all, governed by the pack or the prowess of the moment, flap as the breeze blows against the Republican or the aristocratic bodies and give to the one or the other a preponderance entirely accidental.”   That changed when he entered the presidency.   He hoped he could achieve political unity.  “Nothing shall be spared on my part to obliterate the traces of party and consolidate the nation, if it can be done without abandonment of principle.”

But a few years later, he had to write:  “The attempted reconciliation was honorably pursued for us for a year or two and spurned by them.”  As Meacham writes, “As Jefferson well knew, in practice the best he could (hope for was a) truce between himself and his opponents, not a permanent peace.  Political divisions were intrinsic; what mattered most was how a president managed these divisions.”

3. The conflict between Jefferson’s notions and ideals of freedom and his continued willingness to live alongside slavery, in his own family and with his own bedmate, are vividly portrayed.  He firmly believed that whites could not live with blacks, not at least as far out as he could see.  He was willing to “kick the can down the road,” so to speak in finding a way, if there was to be found one, where blacks would be free and actually integrate with white society. Prior to his presidency, Jefferson would write:  “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.  Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

Jefferson’s cohabitating with Sally Hemmings was well known.  He coolly recorded the birth of Hemmings’ children in his farm book along with other details of the lives of his slaves and of the fates of his crops.  “A multi-racial society was beyond Jefferson’s imagination,” Meacham writes, “except it was not beyond his experience, since he had created just such a society at Monticello.  Mixed-race children such as those he had with Sally Hemmings suffered, in his general view, from an intrinsic “degradation” produced by the “amalgamation of white and black.”  How is it possible to explain the disorienting contradiction between his harsh view of “amalgamation” and his own paternity of such children Meacham asks.  He speculates that the human products of “amalgamation,” to use his term, were thought to be sources of chaos in the road behind his own mountain.  

Meacham correctly points out that rendering moral judgments in retrospect can be hazardous.  Yet also correctly he points out that it’s possible to assess a man’s view on a moral issue like slavery by what others in the same age and facing the same realities thought and did.  And there were at this time in the 1790s  some Virginians of Jefferson’s class who recognized that the blight of slavery had to go and they did what was within their power by emancipating their slaves.

4. Somewhat surprising to me was Jefferson’s desire to “avoid conflict at any cost.”  I can identify with this personally.  It has gotten me into trouble at times. 

It showed up in Jefferson’s case on a personal level by his unwillingness to intervene in a conflict between his two sons-in-law.  Meacham’s traces this tendency on Jefferson’s part back to his childhood.  So it is with mine as well.

5. As with so many historical figures, I was struck by how much death occurred in Jefferson’s family.  His wife, Martha, at an early age; four of his six children, three of them in early childhood.  I’m also struck by that Jefferson had that were either improper (for example, with the wife, Betsy Walker, of one of his best friends) or other loves which were not returned. 

6. Perhaps I shouldn’t have been, because it’s so human, but I was surprised at how often and how deeply Jefferson felt sorry for himself.  

Early on as president, he wrote:  “I long to be in the midst of the children, and have more pleasure in their little follies than in the wisdom of the wise.”  (I can understand that.)  Here, too, he wrote his wife:  “There is such a mixture of the bad passions of the heart that one feels themselves in enemies’ territory.”  

Maybe that’s less “feeling sorry for yourself” than simple good introspection.  

In a latter part of his second term, he wrote a friend:  “I am tired of an office where I can do no more good than many others who would be glad to be employed in it.  To myself personally, it brings nothing but unceasing drudgery and daily loss of friends.”  (Well, we can have our down moments.  He’s just human.  That’s one of the things that makes this biography and his life so special.)  

Later, now retired from the presidency, but still only 68, he writes:  “I am already sensible of decay and the power of walking, and find my memory not so faithful as it used to be.  This may be partly owing to the incessant current of new matter flowing constantly through it”  (I sure can identify with that today at the age of 81).

7. Another element driving Jefferson’s fear of a return of monarchy was his deep knowledge of the history of the English civil war when a short-lived move to popular rule was turned back and the monarchy returned.

8. Striking and concerning to me was Jefferson’s abandoning his rule as Governor of Virginia in the midst of the British attack in 1881.  Jefferson later defended himself against charges of walking away but they were not persuasive to me.   

9. On religion, Jefferson believed in the existence of a creator God and an afterlife.  On the death of Abigail Adams, a good friend, he wrote to her husband, John Adams:  “Mingling sincerely my tears with yours.  Looking forward to ‘the time not very distant’ when we will ‘ascend in essence to an ecstatic meeting with the friends we have loved and lost and whom we shall still love and never lose again.”  Jefferson expressed far more certainty in the prospect of an afterlife than I hold, but I won’t be particularly surprised if that’s what I find and I will be delighted to find it for the same reasons Jefferson enunciates.  Jefferson had no time for what he described as the “dogmas” of most established religion, including the divinity of Christ and his birth by the Virgin Mary.  But like me, above all, he defended the moral essence of the life and teachings of Jesus.  In fact, he wrote a 46-page worked entitled, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

He carried a well-worn Book of Common Prayer, served as a vestryman and invoked the divine in his public statements.  He fought against the establishment of a religion but understood and appreciated the cultural role faith played in the United States.

10. Telling testimony from Jefferson writing to Edward Rutledge as he entered George Washington’s presidency as vice-president:  “You and I have formally seen warm debaters and high political passions.  But gentlemen of different politics used to speak to each other…it is not so now.  Men who have been intimate all their lives cross the streets to avoid meeting, and turn their heads another way lest they should be obliged to touch their hat.”  (What we are experiencing today is not as novel as we sometimes aver, but it is still very undesirable). 

Personal Beliefs Strongly Reinforced

1. Jefferson shares a commitment to service, to good values, to importance of good relations and treating all equally.  To wit:  “There is a debt of service due from every man to his country, a proportion (according to the) bounty which nature and fortune have measured to him.”

Writing to his grandson, Jefferson articulated this understanding of politics and the management of conflicting interests:  “A determination never to do what is wrong, prudence and good honor will go far towards securing  the estimation of the world.”  

And then going on in that letter:  “I never yet saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument.  I have seen many…getting warm, becoming rude, and shooting one another.”

Jefferson believed, Meacham writes, that “socialability was essential to Republicanism.  Men who like and respected and enjoyed one another were more likely to cultivate the virtuous habits that would enable the country’s citizens to engage in ‘the pursuit of happiness.’”

On treating all equally, Meacham writes:  “To Jefferson, each guest who came into his orbit was significant and he had little patience—no patience in fact—with the trappings of rank.”

2. On optimism.  “I’ve often been ‘accused’ of being too optimistic.  I plead guilty.  I have sometimes been too optimistic, not sufficiently attached to a sense of reality.  But far better that than a pessimistic view.”  Jefferson held an optimistic view of life’s possibilities, even as he recognized its imperfections and tragedies.  How could he not, with all the death in his family which surrounded him.  As Meacham writes: “To Jefferson, the imperfections of life and the limits of politics were realities.  So were the wonders and the possibilities of the human mind.”  “I am among those who think well of the human character generally,” Jefferson wrote 21 months before becoming president.  “It is impossible for a man who takes a survey in what is already known, not to see what an immensity in every branch of science yet remains to be discovered.”

I think of this as we contemplate how we will create a lifesaving vaccine for Covid-19.  And how we will create the method and science to be able to predict the next epidemic before it takes its onslaught on people.  

Later in his life, Jefferson struggled to be optimistic.  “I think, with you, that it is a good world on the whole; that it has been framed on a principled benevolence and more pleasure than pain dealt out to us,” Jefferson wrote Adams in 1816.  He took the broadest of views:  “I skewer my bark with hope in the head, leaving fear astern.  My hopes indeed sometimes fail; but not oftener than the forebodings of the gloomy.”

Future presidents often drew on Jefferson’s thinking.  Here is Truman invoking Jefferson:  “I have a profound faith in the people of this country.  I believe in their common sense.  They love freedom and that love for freedom and justice is not dead.  How our people believe today, as Jefferson did, that men were not born with saddles on their backs to be ridden by the privileged few.  We believe, as Jefferson did, that (the) ‘God who gave us life gave us liberty.’  We will not give up our democratic way to a dictatorship of the left; neither will we give it up to a despotism of special privilege.”

3. Like me, Jefferson saw civility as an important political virtue.  In the main, he practiced what he preached.  He understood, as Meacham writes, that “politics is a kaleidoscope, constantly shifting, and the morning’s flow may well be the afternoon’s friend.”  

On a key issue in dispute, Jefferson confided his faith in a middle course of Madison:  “I think we should leave the matter in such a (position) that we may not be committed absolutely to push the matter to extremities, and yet may be free to push as far as events will render prudent.  A little patience and we shall see their spills dissolved and the people recovering their true sight.”

4. On the importance of taking decisive action, including reversing a prior point of view and taking a bold risk.  This was at play for me and others at P&G when we decided to introduce multiple categories in multiple countries at a time of economic and political uncertainty when Eastern and Central Europe opening up after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Probably the most luminous example for Jefferson was the acquisition of Louisiana in 1803.  He exercised executive power here, foregoing involvement of the states in a way that, under normal circumstances, he would not have countenanced.

As Meacham writes, “The vibrant, breathing, prevailing politics of the hour reflected the complicated character of the triumphant president.  The America of Jefferson was neither only Federal nor wholly Republican.  It was rather a marbled blend of the two, confected by a practical man of affairs.  The significance of the case of Louisiana in shaping the destinies of the country and in illuminating Jefferson’s political leadership cannot be overstated.  He believed, for instance, in a limited government, except when he thought the nation was best served by a more expansive one.”

This is what has characterized the most momentous decisions of any time, including right now, as Congress and every level of business of government has had to take unorthodox, even draconian, steps to minimize the impact of Covid-19.

At a time in 1805 when the Nation was under threat of war from either France or Spain, some advocated forming a provisional treaty with Britain.  Jefferson said “no.”  He insisted  that neutrality was still the country’s best course.  

A similar decisive action, though in history not highly regarded, was Jefferson’s decision to impose an embargo on all imports and exports in 1807.  “It was a breakthrough bill,” Meacham writes.  “A projection of governmental power that surpassed even the hated Alien and Sedition Acts.”

5. Jefferson’s life affirms what I’ve all believed of all of us, even the most famous, “No man is perfect.  We must judge a person by his whole life:  what he did, what he said, what he stood for, his values.”  As Jefferson wrote to his daughter, Patsy:  “Every human being, my dear, must be viewed according to what it is good for, for none of us, no one, is perfect; and were we to love none who had imperfections, this world would be a desert for our love.”

As Jefferson wrote later:  “All we can do is to make the best of our friends:  love and cherish what is good in them, and keep out of the way of what is bad; but no more think of rejecting them for it than in throwing away a piece of music for a flat passage or two.”

Meacham writes with wisdom as he moves to sum up Jefferson’s life.  “We sense his greatness because we know that perfection in politics is not possible but that Jefferson passed the fundamental test of leadership.  Despite all his shortcomings and all of the inevitable disappointments and mistakes and dreams deferred (surely referring to the abolition of slavery and the treatment accorded to the Native Americans), he left America, and the world, in a better place than it had been when he first entered the arena of public life.”

No one could ask anything more of a human being than that.  

Meacham continues:  “The real Jefferson was like so many of us:  a bundle of contradictions, competing passions, flaws, sins and virtues that can never be neatly smoothed out into a tidy whole.”

With due respect, I think Meacham oversimplifies what anchored the values and purpose of Jefferson’s life.  He writes that, “The closest thing to a constant in his life was his need for power and for control.  He tended to mask these drives effectively.  Henry Adams wrote:  “The leadership he sought was one of sympathy and love, not of command.”

But that was not quite the case, Meacham writes.  “For him, sympathy and love among the members of his political circle were means to an end—and the end was command.”

Yes, I agree.  Command was part of it.  But I think he had a nobler purpose, to make the nation a better place, a safer place, a larger and more vibrant space.  In other words, I believe comand was a means to a nobler end.

What has been the “constant” in my life?  I return to service.  Being all I can be and helping others do the same.  Succeeding.  Leaving people, above all my family, in a better place.  

In a way, Jefferson expressed what he viewed as the constant in his life in his later years, as he reflected on drafting the Declaration of Independence:  “Neither aiming in originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that occasion the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.”

In less grandiose terms, that thought was in my mind, in all of our minds, as we wrote the Purpose, Values and Principles of P&G in 1987, as we celebrated the 150^th anniversary of the company’s founding.

FM_JonMeachamThomasJefferson051520