One hopes that Joe Biden knows his history, especially if he’s called to the Oval Office to advise President Obama on the next steps the United States should take against Middle Eastern terrorists.
Perhaps a Vice President Biden will recall the Betsy, the Maria and the Dauphin, American-owned merchant ships that were seized by Middle Eastern pirates, becoming the first victims in the war on terror – way back in the eighteenth century.
What, you say? The war on terror wasn’t created by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the diabolical Donald Rumsfeld, the most evil man to ever occupy the defense secretary’s office?
No, the war against Arab terrorism is almost as old as the country itself, stemming back to the 1780s, when those three American merchant ships were hijacked and seized by Arabian pirates.
The “evildoers” back then were pirates from the Barbary sheikdoms of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli. American political leaders were so alarmed by these attacks that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, on diplomatic duty in Europe, were ordered to negotiate a peace treaty with the sheikdoms – or, as we would say today, find out how much of a bribe the United States needed to pay annually so U.S. ships would no longer be attacked.
George Washington, frustrated with seeing American merchant ships attacked, by both Arab pirates and European navy ships, proposed the construction of the U.S. Navy during the last year of his presidency. The first Navy ships that were built would, at President Jefferson’s direction, successfully attack the Barbary Pirates, providing the young country with its first military victories since the Revolution.
Part of the reason that the United States finds itself fighting Arab terrorists is because the U.S. embraced ideas that were sprung from John Locke and the European Enlightenment, concepts that advance, endorse and support the notion that markets should be free, government should be limited, religion should be kept at an arm’s length (at least from the government), and that people are endowed with natural human rights, allowing them to live as they see fit, accepting any religion they find suitable, and selecting those who seek to govern them. In addition, the United States accepts the notion of tolerance, property rights and rule-of-law.
The acceptance of the ideas from Locke and the European Enlightenment, and the advancement of them, led the United States and its western Allies to become economically successful, tolerant of variety of people, and politically viable; these ideas stand in stark contrast to the beliefs of Arab jihadists, who are quick to blame others for all that ills their countries and their fellow believers.
That’s the word from Melvin E. Lee, a U.S. Navy captain based in Naples, Italy, where he serves as the special operations officer for the Sixth Fleet. He wrote this nearly 3,700 word article, “The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism,” for the Middle East Quarterly, earlier this year.
Capt. Lee, who recently completed his master’s degree at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Penn., has written an outstanding article that is heavily sourced. He provides solid research, showing that a number of high-minded thinkers are coming to the same conclusion – Islam must embrace the ideas of John Locke and the European Enlightenment so its followers and its citizens no longer live in a ghetto; failure to accept these ideas and the Islamists will continue to resort to terrorism to resolve their problems. A former submarine commander, Capt. Lee provides a detailed account of U.S. actions in the Middle East for more than 200 years.
“Only Islam’s fundamental reform will resolve the conflict” between the United States and the terrorists, writes Lee.
In the interests of full disclosure, your correspondent knows Mel Lee. We went to college together and shared a suite in one of the residence halls. Lee, a double major in physics and chemistry, was (and, as far as I’m concerned, remains) the sharpest knife in the drawer. After receiving his bachelor’s degree, he pursued his Ph.D. at the University of Arizona but cut short his studies to pursue his naval career.
Capt. Lee is an excellent Navy officer and I hope that one day he’s advising a president on national security. I’ll rest easier at night knowing he has the president’s ear on complicated and delicate issues.
Capt. Lee’s idea – that Islam needs to reform itself – has been accepted by other leading thinkers. Max Rodenback, the Middle East correspondent for The Economist, in reviewing the Brookings Institution’s Kenneth M. Pollack’s latest book, A Path Out Of The Desert: A Grand Strategy for America in the Middle East, compliments Pollack for concluding that terrorism coming from Middle Eastern (Arab) states will not end until “they manage to produce better schools, more opportunities for youth, wider social justice and more inclusive, accountable government.”
Rodenback went on to say, in his New York Times review, that Pollack was quite right to admit that “George Bush showed unwonted acuity when he called for draining the swamps of extremism by promoting reform.”
This is a recipe for democracy.
You can find Capt. Lee’s article here: http://www.meforum.org/article/1830
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Coffee, Tea or Me: One Airline's Answer to Profitability
Combined Wire Services
CHICAGO – So they’ll have the money to serve Starbucks Coffee to their passengers once again, United Airlines announced Tuesday that newly minted prostitutes will replace its aging fleet of flight attendants.
“If this doesn’t work, I give up,” said Glenn Tilton, the airline’s chief executive officer, as he announced the changes at the Chicago-based carrier.
This latest policy comes on the heels of charging passengers for checked luggage, which was announced earlier this year.
“Our customers have been beating me up about the loss of Starbucks,” Tilton said. “This is the only way I know how to get the money we need to bring back this premium item: Start selling an additional service – which people will buy.”
United plans to replace two rows of seats in the coach class section of its planes with what’s described as “comfort rooms,” where the carrier’s prostitutes and passengers will be able to engage in private, intimate activity, Tilton said.
“Of course, we’ll need to swipe a passenger’s credit card for $500 before anything happens,” he said. “But it’ll be the best lay … I mean 15-minute, intimate experience … our customers will ever receive."
The prostitutes, fresh off the streets of Amsterdam and other cities across the globe, will start working for the airline during the end-of-year holiday season.
“You could call it our way of making the Friendly Skies friendlier at United,” Tilton said. “Not only will our passengers arrive at their destination safely and on-time but, if they so choose, with a big smile on their face – and maybe with a Starbucks latte in hand, too.”
The airline’s customers will be able to reserve a prostitute when they buy a ticket on the carrier’s Web site. Passengers waiting to pick up a prostitute after they’ve boarded will be charged a 20 percent premium, or $600, for their 15-minute, intimate encounter.
The carrier’s flight attendants are expected to be replaced by December. Tilton said the “comfort rooms” should be completed on all of United’s planes at the same time.
Tilton said the airline will be able to accommodate a variety of sexual tastes and preferences.
“Our prostitutes will come in all shapes, sizes and genders,” Tilton said. “We’ll have male prostitutes, female prostitutes, even transgendered ones, too, so we can successfully service all of our customers – regardless of their sexual orientation.
“These prostitutes will also do all jobs our customers have come to expect from our current fleet of excellent flight attendants.”
Asked if the airline’s prostitutes will engage in sexual activities that might be considered unconventional, Tilton said, “We’ve formed a task force to uncover this issue and make recommendations for accommodating a variety of sexual requests that might be considered, uh, unusual.
“Condoms must be used at all times,” he added.
In addition, Tilton announced that United will create a new customer loyalty program, called the Mile High Club, allowing passengers to accumulate miles on their Mile High Club card as they buy the prostitutes.
United expects revenue from the prostitutes to generate 20 – 30 percent of the carrier’s total annual revenue, or an additional $4 and $6 billion a year.
“With money like that, we’ll be able to serve Starbucks again,” said Tilton. “It’ll be free, too, just like the soft drinks, and we’ll be profitable.”
Wall Street applauded the new policy, taking up the company’s stock (symbol UAUA) five points to close at $17.30.
“I’m going long on United because this is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking we’ve been waiting for from them,” said Morningstar financial analyst Brian Nelson. “It’s fantastic! They’re a leader in their industry.”
Calls placed to American Airlines, Delta and Southwest Airlines were not returned but financial analysts following the airline industry expect United’s competitors to offer similar services.
The Association of Flight Attendants, the union representing United’s fight attendants, is expected to hold a news conference on Wednesday to discuss the airline’s pending changes.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Senator Edwards Explains America and Sex
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, once his party’s vice presidential nominee, used his presidential campaign theme on Saturday to explain his recent exploits, saying there are some Americans who are committed to sexually monogamous marriages while there are other married Americans like himself “who fuck around.”
“Unfortunately, I got caught,” said the former North Carolina Democrat, admitting to having engaged in a sexual liaison with a California movie maker.
The former Senator is the second prominent Democrat this year to admit to having sex outside of his marriage. Eliot Spitzer, never accused of having a libido, resigned from the New York’s governor’s office in March because of the sexual services he purchased from a prostitute.
“There are two Americas,” former Senator Edwards said. “There are married Americans who are committed to remaining sexually monogamous in their marriage and then there is another America, consisting of married men and women, who, like me, fuck around on their spouse.”
Asked if there was any comparison to the former New York Governor, Edwards said, “There are two Americas. There’s the one that pays for sex and then there’s other that gets it for free – kinda like me.”
The former Senator’s wife, Elizabeth, battling cancer, refused to issue any comment about the affair.
“There are two kinds of wives,” Edwards said. “There’s the kind of wife who puts out and who, by doing so, keeps her man safe at home, and then there’s the kind of wife who engages in risky behavior and refuses to have sex with her husband.
“She’s the one who loses her man,” Edwards said.
“We don’t really know what a ‘sexual liaison’ is,” said a man who’s no stranger to dalliances outside of his marriage, former President Bill Clinton. “He (Edwards) coulda just received a hummer and, according to the Constitution, that’s not really sex.”
“Less than one percent of all American women have had sex with me,” said Edwards. “I plan to get back out on the campaign trail to give more American women the opportunity to have sex with me.”
Asked if there was anything in particular he was looking for in a potential sexual partner, Senator Edwards, smiling, said, “As long as it’s a woman who’s over 21 – and she’s not a complete double bagger – I’m in.”
“Unfortunately, I got caught,” said the former North Carolina Democrat, admitting to having engaged in a sexual liaison with a California movie maker.
The former Senator is the second prominent Democrat this year to admit to having sex outside of his marriage. Eliot Spitzer, never accused of having a libido, resigned from the New York’s governor’s office in March because of the sexual services he purchased from a prostitute.
“There are two Americas,” former Senator Edwards said. “There are married Americans who are committed to remaining sexually monogamous in their marriage and then there is another America, consisting of married men and women, who, like me, fuck around on their spouse.”
Asked if there was any comparison to the former New York Governor, Edwards said, “There are two Americas. There’s the one that pays for sex and then there’s other that gets it for free – kinda like me.”
The former Senator’s wife, Elizabeth, battling cancer, refused to issue any comment about the affair.
“There are two kinds of wives,” Edwards said. “There’s the kind of wife who puts out and who, by doing so, keeps her man safe at home, and then there’s the kind of wife who engages in risky behavior and refuses to have sex with her husband.
“She’s the one who loses her man,” Edwards said.
“We don’t really know what a ‘sexual liaison’ is,” said a man who’s no stranger to dalliances outside of his marriage, former President Bill Clinton. “He (Edwards) coulda just received a hummer and, according to the Constitution, that’s not really sex.”
“Less than one percent of all American women have had sex with me,” said Edwards. “I plan to get back out on the campaign trail to give more American women the opportunity to have sex with me.”
Asked if there was anything in particular he was looking for in a potential sexual partner, Senator Edwards, smiling, said, “As long as it’s a woman who’s over 21 – and she’s not a complete double bagger – I’m in.”
Monday, May 05, 2008
New Social Networking Site -- Funded & Thriving
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. – The newest social networking website comes with a whole new twist: Instead of encouraging its members to connect with friends and professional acquaintances, this one wants its members to list their enemies.
FuckYouIHateYou.com, funded by Silicon Valley venture capital firm Alliance Capital, claims more than 10,000 members and another 1,000,000 enemies.
“Unlike your average LinkedIn member, our members aren’t full of shit,” said James Lee, the 24-year-old website's chief executive.
“The average member of our site has around 100 enemies and they hate each and every one of them – with a passion,” Lee added.
“Let’s face it, no one who connects with someone on LinkedIn or any of those other social sites really wants to be someone’s friend. It’s just a place for frenemies to meet.
“Our members are honest," he continued. "If they say they hate you, they really hate you."
Lee, who started FuckYouIHateYou.com during his freshman year at Stanford University, says that members of his site just list their enemies.
“There’s none of this b.s. like asking for permission to be someone’s enemy. Our members just list them -- done deal!”
Members can view one another’s enemy list, he said, to make sure they’re hating “the right people.”
“If you and another member have someone you hate in common, that’s even better,” said Lee.
When told that his site sounded like another version of President Richard Nixon’s enemy list, Lee, looking confused, asked, “When was he president?”
Members of FuckYouIHateYou.com are encouraged to increase their enemies list as fast as possible.
“The member who lists the most enemies any given week can win prizes, trips, even a car,” said FuckYouIHateYou.com’s membership vice president Toby Benwick.
The perfect people to list as enemies, Lee said, include “anyone who ever dissed you or anyone you refer to as an ‘ex’. That could be an ex-girlfriend, ex-wife, ex-husband, ex-boyfriend, ex-lover, ex-employee. Ex-bosses are always good, too."
Members are encouraged to post pictures and video clips of the people they hate.
“Our staff always does a round of high fives if a member’s enemy dies,” said Benwick. “That’s just the coolest.”
Membership to the website is free. Advertisers on the website include divorce attorneys and various hate groups, including the Ku Klux Klan. Not to be outdone, the Nation of Islam is considering what Benwick describes as a “huge” sponsorship opportunity on the site as are the country's leading political parties.
Benwick said some of the site’s members and their selected enemies are scheduled to make special appearances on daytime television talk shows.
“We look forward to our first smack down with the FuckYouIHateYou.com people,” said Jerry Springer.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Illinois Earthquake
Unless you’ve cut yourself from all media – not always a bad idea – you likely heard that there was an earthquake in Illinois, a truly shocking event because they’re considered California-only tragedies.
Chicago television and radio stations started reporting the news about the earthquake – it happened at 4:37 am – within 30 minutes of the tremor. It measured about 5.2 on the Richter scale and was centered around 250 miles south of the Windy City.
The experts have been predicting an earthquake for years in Illinois, but they always figured it would involve the New Madrid Fault, one of the more dangerous fault lines in the country that stretches from Indianapolis to St. Louis to Memphis.
Today’s earthquake, reported the Chicago Tribune, happened “occurred in the Ozark dome region.
Not that any of this matters. The only time this information will mean anything to anyone will be when or if there’s an earthquake that’s sizably larger, say around an 8 on the Richter Scale, that brings down skyscrapers in cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis or Memphis. Until that time, today’s tremor – enough to wake up some people but not cause an incredible amount of damage – will soon be forgotten.
What was interesting about all the television reports this morning, at 5 am, was how many people felt compelled to call in and talk to the anchors. One lady mentioned that she originally thought her husband was turning over in bed when she felt the earthquake. How much does this guy weigh?
For a number of women, married, single, divorced, separated, etc., I’m guessing this is the first time they felt the earth move in a long, long time.
This could be a major sales opportunity for the marital aide companies.
Chicago television and radio stations started reporting the news about the earthquake – it happened at 4:37 am – within 30 minutes of the tremor. It measured about 5.2 on the Richter scale and was centered around 250 miles south of the Windy City.
The experts have been predicting an earthquake for years in Illinois, but they always figured it would involve the New Madrid Fault, one of the more dangerous fault lines in the country that stretches from Indianapolis to St. Louis to Memphis.
Today’s earthquake, reported the Chicago Tribune, happened “occurred in the Ozark dome region.
Not that any of this matters. The only time this information will mean anything to anyone will be when or if there’s an earthquake that’s sizably larger, say around an 8 on the Richter Scale, that brings down skyscrapers in cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis or Memphis. Until that time, today’s tremor – enough to wake up some people but not cause an incredible amount of damage – will soon be forgotten.
What was interesting about all the television reports this morning, at 5 am, was how many people felt compelled to call in and talk to the anchors. One lady mentioned that she originally thought her husband was turning over in bed when she felt the earthquake. How much does this guy weigh?
For a number of women, married, single, divorced, separated, etc., I’m guessing this is the first time they felt the earth move in a long, long time.
This could be a major sales opportunity for the marital aide companies.
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Vicar of Baghdad
Editor's Note: I've met Canon Andrew White during his visits to Glen Ellyn's St. Mark's Episcopal Church. He's better known as the vicar of Baghdad, the only Anglican priest still working in the city. The words below are his and were printed in The Times of London on Monday, March 17.
"Five years ago today I had real hope that things would soon change in the nation of Iraq, after years of tyranny, dictatorship and suffering. Unlike any other non Iraqis I meet now in Iraq, I had been here before the war. I had experienced the fear and tyranny of the Saddam regime and I openly said we needed force to bring change. I knew that this could not be done by the Iraqi people. I feared what would happen to the people I loved during the days of the war. I was full of joy when the war finished so soon and I quickly returned to the nation I loved. On returning I found a sense of liberation, joy and freedom. There was a joy I had never seen before. Chaos was certainly there but we hoped it would soon cease. I will never forget the words of the top British General telling me to leave my return for a couple of weeks because 'security should then be sorted out'. Five years later it has still not been sorted.
"It is impossible to really describe what it is like here in Baghdad. I live in the fortified International Zone but even here I am surrounded by my bodyguards at all times and we can't move without carrying the right pieces of plastic ID around our necks. When we do move we can't move more than five miles an hour, have to stop every few yards a different security barriers and when we get to them the colour of your piece of plastic dictates how quickly you will be allowed through. All very intense, but it does not compare to my regular trips to St George's Church.
"This journey begins at the home of the Iraqi National Security Advisor. I am driven into the security compound by my bodyguards and transferred to the care of the Iraqi Army. With body armour on, I take my seat in an armoured car with blackened windows. Other military vehicles surround us and slowly we drive through the IZ stopping at it countless checkpoints. Eventually we leave the IZ and are met by an array of Iraqi police cars and further military vehicles. The sirens go on, guns are pointed out of the windows of all the vehicles and we speed down the road. If we meet a traffic jam, the other cars are yelled at through loud speakers and they try and make way. If that does not work our whole convoy just moves to the other side of the road, and moves the wrong way quickly down the road. At every crossroad, the police have stopped all other traffic. We come to the road where the church is- the road is closed off. We speed to the Church and drive into the grounds. The army run to surround the church, others check that it is safe and I am eventually allowed out of the car to be met by scores of our children.
"With the army remaining inside and outside we begin our worship. My mind goes back to the days before the war. There was none of this kind of security, and there was no congregation at our Church, why because it was Anglican. Commonly it is still known as the English Church. Our congregation is large, our worship wonderful but I only need to look at our people to realise what has really happened here following the war. We only have six men in our congregation of several hundred, the rest have been killed. Many of even the young women wear black as they are still mourning the loss of their husbands. Scores of people have been kidnapped, even this year. So from the pulpit every week I see the effect of war on these people. It is impossible for us to forget the tragedy outside. We hear the guns shooting and the bombs blasting and we simply continue worshipping. After the service food is provided for the whole congregation- we alternate; one week it is food the next week money. If we do not give, they do not have. The cost of this provision is colossal and it is primarily provided by Churches in England. Every week thanks go out to those who enable our people to live.
"So we can not forget the tragedy now, it is all around. I cannot forget the Iraq before the war, and the fear and oppression that were experienced everyday. I can not forget either the mistakes made after the war. The continual lack of engagement with the religious community and the continued belief that the secular position of Iraq would supersede was dangerous and naïve.
"Despite the many mistakes that have been made I still do not regret that the war happened. I regret deeply what happened after the war. I take hope from the work of the Multi National Forces in Iraq, not least the US and UK troops; they are doing an outstanding job. I also take hope from the way that the Iraqi Army is developing, and from the work of Dr. Mowaffak Al Rubbaie, Iraq's National Security Advisor, and General Dave Petraeus the Chief US Military Officer.
"Reconciliation is certainly needed here. It is at the very heart of our hopes in the rebuilding process. It is a process that must involve both the political and religious leaders. To this end we are met in Copenhagen from 18th February with the religious and political leaders of Iraq to try and find a way forward and to work together on this very point. It has taken months to get this meeting together but with the support of the Danish Government it did happen. We wait to see its results. Last week we met in Cairo with Sunni and Shia religious leaders, including the deputy of Muqtada Al Sadr and the representative of Ayotollah Ali Sistani. Top Sunni Clerics were also there. A total rejection of all violence was pronounced. It was a major achievement. This week a major reconciliation conference organized by the Iraqi Government is taking place. It is between political groups but key representatives have not shown up. The reality is that in our meeting last week in Cairo we had far more groups represented and it was paid for by the Pentagon. Reconciliation is the only answer. We still have a very long way to go but we can't give up.
"It can not be denied that the last five years here have been terrible. That all around we see such devastation. All I can say is that we cannot and must not give up our efforts to rebuild this once great nation. It is so hard, there are many days when we just wonder how more difficult it can get, but we have a big God on our side and we know that with His help we will succeed."
"Five years ago today I had real hope that things would soon change in the nation of Iraq, after years of tyranny, dictatorship and suffering. Unlike any other non Iraqis I meet now in Iraq, I had been here before the war. I had experienced the fear and tyranny of the Saddam regime and I openly said we needed force to bring change. I knew that this could not be done by the Iraqi people. I feared what would happen to the people I loved during the days of the war. I was full of joy when the war finished so soon and I quickly returned to the nation I loved. On returning I found a sense of liberation, joy and freedom. There was a joy I had never seen before. Chaos was certainly there but we hoped it would soon cease. I will never forget the words of the top British General telling me to leave my return for a couple of weeks because 'security should then be sorted out'. Five years later it has still not been sorted.
"It is impossible to really describe what it is like here in Baghdad. I live in the fortified International Zone but even here I am surrounded by my bodyguards at all times and we can't move without carrying the right pieces of plastic ID around our necks. When we do move we can't move more than five miles an hour, have to stop every few yards a different security barriers and when we get to them the colour of your piece of plastic dictates how quickly you will be allowed through. All very intense, but it does not compare to my regular trips to St George's Church.
"This journey begins at the home of the Iraqi National Security Advisor. I am driven into the security compound by my bodyguards and transferred to the care of the Iraqi Army. With body armour on, I take my seat in an armoured car with blackened windows. Other military vehicles surround us and slowly we drive through the IZ stopping at it countless checkpoints. Eventually we leave the IZ and are met by an array of Iraqi police cars and further military vehicles. The sirens go on, guns are pointed out of the windows of all the vehicles and we speed down the road. If we meet a traffic jam, the other cars are yelled at through loud speakers and they try and make way. If that does not work our whole convoy just moves to the other side of the road, and moves the wrong way quickly down the road. At every crossroad, the police have stopped all other traffic. We come to the road where the church is- the road is closed off. We speed to the Church and drive into the grounds. The army run to surround the church, others check that it is safe and I am eventually allowed out of the car to be met by scores of our children.
"With the army remaining inside and outside we begin our worship. My mind goes back to the days before the war. There was none of this kind of security, and there was no congregation at our Church, why because it was Anglican. Commonly it is still known as the English Church. Our congregation is large, our worship wonderful but I only need to look at our people to realise what has really happened here following the war. We only have six men in our congregation of several hundred, the rest have been killed. Many of even the young women wear black as they are still mourning the loss of their husbands. Scores of people have been kidnapped, even this year. So from the pulpit every week I see the effect of war on these people. It is impossible for us to forget the tragedy outside. We hear the guns shooting and the bombs blasting and we simply continue worshipping. After the service food is provided for the whole congregation- we alternate; one week it is food the next week money. If we do not give, they do not have. The cost of this provision is colossal and it is primarily provided by Churches in England. Every week thanks go out to those who enable our people to live.
"So we can not forget the tragedy now, it is all around. I cannot forget the Iraq before the war, and the fear and oppression that were experienced everyday. I can not forget either the mistakes made after the war. The continual lack of engagement with the religious community and the continued belief that the secular position of Iraq would supersede was dangerous and naïve.
"Despite the many mistakes that have been made I still do not regret that the war happened. I regret deeply what happened after the war. I take hope from the work of the Multi National Forces in Iraq, not least the US and UK troops; they are doing an outstanding job. I also take hope from the way that the Iraqi Army is developing, and from the work of Dr. Mowaffak Al Rubbaie, Iraq's National Security Advisor, and General Dave Petraeus the Chief US Military Officer.
"Reconciliation is certainly needed here. It is at the very heart of our hopes in the rebuilding process. It is a process that must involve both the political and religious leaders. To this end we are met in Copenhagen from 18th February with the religious and political leaders of Iraq to try and find a way forward and to work together on this very point. It has taken months to get this meeting together but with the support of the Danish Government it did happen. We wait to see its results. Last week we met in Cairo with Sunni and Shia religious leaders, including the deputy of Muqtada Al Sadr and the representative of Ayotollah Ali Sistani. Top Sunni Clerics were also there. A total rejection of all violence was pronounced. It was a major achievement. This week a major reconciliation conference organized by the Iraqi Government is taking place. It is between political groups but key representatives have not shown up. The reality is that in our meeting last week in Cairo we had far more groups represented and it was paid for by the Pentagon. Reconciliation is the only answer. We still have a very long way to go but we can't give up.
"It can not be denied that the last five years here have been terrible. That all around we see such devastation. All I can say is that we cannot and must not give up our efforts to rebuild this once great nation. It is so hard, there are many days when we just wonder how more difficult it can get, but we have a big God on our side and we know that with His help we will succeed."
Coffee with Barack, Hillary and John
“So-called ‘global warming’ is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st- century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it.” Chip Giller, founder, Grist.org, for the environmentally concerned.
“You can’t lead the people, if you don’t love the people. You can’t save the people, if you don’t serve the people.” Cornel West, professor, Princeton University
“The most important thing in life is to stop saying ‘I wish’ and start saying ‘I will.’ Consider nothing impossible, then treat possibilities as probabilities.” David Copperfield, Emmy-Award winning illusionist.
“When I wake up in the morning, I want to know that my family, friends and fans know what I believe in and what I’m all about. That’s what should be important.” Robert Randolph, Musician, music heard on XM Satellite Radio Channel 75
“Can I just get a damn cup of coffee – fast?” Doug Page, blogger.
If you’re a Barack Obama voter, those phrases from the back of Starbucks’ coffee cups are more than just quotations. They’re Scripture. Those passages move you to action, define you as a person, tell you how to live, what to consume and influence your vote. You’re an “aspirational” consumer, marketers say.
If you’re Hillary Clinton voter, however, the highlight of your day just might be a Dunkin Donuts cup of Joe with a cholesterol-laden doughnut. Your values were determined by what you read in your newspaper, saw on television, heard on the radio and the amount of money in your checkbook.
Hillary voters don’t need no stinkin’ philosophy, especially if it’s on a coffee cup. They’re lunch-pail Democrats, whose outlook was formed by the University of Real Life, the School of Hard Knocks.
That’s the word from Gerard Baker, a columnist for The Times of London, who observes the United States first hand. A British citizen, Baker comes as close as anyone lately to being a modern-day Alexis de Tocqueville, that famous Frenchman who witnessed and wrote about Americans during the 19th century.
“Mr. Obama’s supporters are the latte liberals. These are the people for whom Starbucks, with its $5 cups of coffee and fancy bakeries, is not just a consumer choice but a lifestyle. They not only have the money. They share the values,” wrote Baker after February’s Super Tuesday presidential primary.
“They live by all those little quotes on the side of Starbucks cups,” Baker said.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, “is the candidate of what might be called Dunkin Donut Democrats. They do not have the money to waste on multiple-hyphenated coffee drinks – double-top, no-foam, non-fat lattes and the like … They are the .75-cent coffee and doughnut crowd,” Baker said.
So, in an attempt to confirm Baker’s point – not that I have any reason to doubt him – your correspondent spoke to the public relations people at both Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts.
Here’s what they said:
The phrases were placed on the coffee cups to spark a conversation, said the Starbucks spokeswoman. Starbucks sees itself, in the United States at least, as offering up the American version of an Italian café, where people gather to drink coffee and pontificate about life.
While an interesting an idea, I’ve never once seen a Starbucks consumer read those quotations and use it as a means to strike up a conversation, either with someone they know or don’t know. So Starbucks notion that someone will use these quotes to start up a conversation seems, at the very least, presumptuous.
“We have accepted submissions from very different kinds of people with varying points of view,” she said. In other words, left-wing and right-wing extremists have an equal shot (no pun intended) of having their words published on a Starbucks cup.
Anyone can submit their words of wisdom for consideration on a Starbucks cup by going to http://www.starbucks.com/retail and then clicking on the way i see it on the left side of the page.
Under no circumstance – this is important for you Hillary voters to understand – is Starbucks sending our messages, through its coffee cups, suggesting that Democrats vote for the junior Senator who’s successfully winning the latte vote. He’s doing that all by himself, thank you.
Starbucks would not release details on how many submissions they’ve received; the spokeswoman said that each submission is reviewed by a committee. She would not say who sits on the committee or the criteria used to judge which submissions are printed or discarded.
At Dunkin Donuts, they see themselves very differently from Seattle's coffee behemoth and, possibly to Starbucks detriment, they’ve got their coffee competitor figured out.
“We’re not an aspirational brand,” said their spokeswoman. “We serve great coffee to be consumed wherever our consumers wish to drink it.
“People come into our stores, get their coffee and doughnut and then go to work,” she said. “They don’t have time to hang out and talk, which is why our stores are usually empty.”
Indeed, in a quick drive around Chicago’s western suburbs, Starbucks cafés were filled with patrons while the Dunkin Donuts stores had, at the most, one person sitting in them.
Sixty percent of all Dunkin Donuts revenue comes from coffee sales, the spokeswoman said, making coffee a high priority for them. She wouldn’t release revenue figures because the company is privately held.
Dunkin Donuts has no plans, the spokeswoman said, to print quotations on the side of their coffee cups.
So what are we to make out of all this coffee stuff? Are Barack voters the only ones who are aspirational? Are Hillary’s voters only pedestrian? What kind of coffee do Republicans drink?
I wish I had the answers but calls placed to the Obama, Clinton and John McCain presidential campaigns on their candidates’ coffee preferences went unreturned. I have noticed, in some of the television coverage, that Senators Clinton and McCain appear to drink Starbucks coffee. At least they’re holding Starbucks cups. I’m unable to confirm what’s in them. So far, I’ve not seen a Starbucks cup in the hands of Sen. Obama. (Perhaps he’s a closeted Starbucks drinker – just like he’s a closeted smoker.)
What does all this mean?
People running for president of the United States are aspirational – regardless of their coffee or their party affiliation. They believe they’re a force for positive change. And it’s my guess that many of their most enthusiastic supporters are equally aspirational – regardless of their coffee and how they take it.
Editor’s Note: Yours truly grew up in a day and age in journalism when it was considered inappropriate not to identify sources – unless of course there was some specific reason that required someone to go unidentified. In this particular article, I’m not naming the spokeswomen because they asked to remain unnamed.
“You can’t lead the people, if you don’t love the people. You can’t save the people, if you don’t serve the people.” Cornel West, professor, Princeton University
“The most important thing in life is to stop saying ‘I wish’ and start saying ‘I will.’ Consider nothing impossible, then treat possibilities as probabilities.” David Copperfield, Emmy-Award winning illusionist.
“When I wake up in the morning, I want to know that my family, friends and fans know what I believe in and what I’m all about. That’s what should be important.” Robert Randolph, Musician, music heard on XM Satellite Radio Channel 75
“Can I just get a damn cup of coffee – fast?” Doug Page, blogger.
If you’re a Barack Obama voter, those phrases from the back of Starbucks’ coffee cups are more than just quotations. They’re Scripture. Those passages move you to action, define you as a person, tell you how to live, what to consume and influence your vote. You’re an “aspirational” consumer, marketers say.
If you’re Hillary Clinton voter, however, the highlight of your day just might be a Dunkin Donuts cup of Joe with a cholesterol-laden doughnut. Your values were determined by what you read in your newspaper, saw on television, heard on the radio and the amount of money in your checkbook.
Hillary voters don’t need no stinkin’ philosophy, especially if it’s on a coffee cup. They’re lunch-pail Democrats, whose outlook was formed by the University of Real Life, the School of Hard Knocks.
That’s the word from Gerard Baker, a columnist for The Times of London, who observes the United States first hand. A British citizen, Baker comes as close as anyone lately to being a modern-day Alexis de Tocqueville, that famous Frenchman who witnessed and wrote about Americans during the 19th century.
“Mr. Obama’s supporters are the latte liberals. These are the people for whom Starbucks, with its $5 cups of coffee and fancy bakeries, is not just a consumer choice but a lifestyle. They not only have the money. They share the values,” wrote Baker after February’s Super Tuesday presidential primary.
“They live by all those little quotes on the side of Starbucks cups,” Baker said.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, “is the candidate of what might be called Dunkin Donut Democrats. They do not have the money to waste on multiple-hyphenated coffee drinks – double-top, no-foam, non-fat lattes and the like … They are the .75-cent coffee and doughnut crowd,” Baker said.
So, in an attempt to confirm Baker’s point – not that I have any reason to doubt him – your correspondent spoke to the public relations people at both Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts.
Here’s what they said:
The phrases were placed on the coffee cups to spark a conversation, said the Starbucks spokeswoman. Starbucks sees itself, in the United States at least, as offering up the American version of an Italian café, where people gather to drink coffee and pontificate about life.
While an interesting an idea, I’ve never once seen a Starbucks consumer read those quotations and use it as a means to strike up a conversation, either with someone they know or don’t know. So Starbucks notion that someone will use these quotes to start up a conversation seems, at the very least, presumptuous.
“We have accepted submissions from very different kinds of people with varying points of view,” she said. In other words, left-wing and right-wing extremists have an equal shot (no pun intended) of having their words published on a Starbucks cup.
Anyone can submit their words of wisdom for consideration on a Starbucks cup by going to http://www.starbucks.com/retail and then clicking on the way i see it on the left side of the page.
Under no circumstance – this is important for you Hillary voters to understand – is Starbucks sending our messages, through its coffee cups, suggesting that Democrats vote for the junior Senator who’s successfully winning the latte vote. He’s doing that all by himself, thank you.
Starbucks would not release details on how many submissions they’ve received; the spokeswoman said that each submission is reviewed by a committee. She would not say who sits on the committee or the criteria used to judge which submissions are printed or discarded.
At Dunkin Donuts, they see themselves very differently from Seattle's coffee behemoth and, possibly to Starbucks detriment, they’ve got their coffee competitor figured out.
“We’re not an aspirational brand,” said their spokeswoman. “We serve great coffee to be consumed wherever our consumers wish to drink it.
“People come into our stores, get their coffee and doughnut and then go to work,” she said. “They don’t have time to hang out and talk, which is why our stores are usually empty.”
Indeed, in a quick drive around Chicago’s western suburbs, Starbucks cafés were filled with patrons while the Dunkin Donuts stores had, at the most, one person sitting in them.
Sixty percent of all Dunkin Donuts revenue comes from coffee sales, the spokeswoman said, making coffee a high priority for them. She wouldn’t release revenue figures because the company is privately held.
Dunkin Donuts has no plans, the spokeswoman said, to print quotations on the side of their coffee cups.
So what are we to make out of all this coffee stuff? Are Barack voters the only ones who are aspirational? Are Hillary’s voters only pedestrian? What kind of coffee do Republicans drink?
I wish I had the answers but calls placed to the Obama, Clinton and John McCain presidential campaigns on their candidates’ coffee preferences went unreturned. I have noticed, in some of the television coverage, that Senators Clinton and McCain appear to drink Starbucks coffee. At least they’re holding Starbucks cups. I’m unable to confirm what’s in them. So far, I’ve not seen a Starbucks cup in the hands of Sen. Obama. (Perhaps he’s a closeted Starbucks drinker – just like he’s a closeted smoker.)
What does all this mean?
People running for president of the United States are aspirational – regardless of their coffee or their party affiliation. They believe they’re a force for positive change. And it’s my guess that many of their most enthusiastic supporters are equally aspirational – regardless of their coffee and how they take it.
Editor’s Note: Yours truly grew up in a day and age in journalism when it was considered inappropriate not to identify sources – unless of course there was some specific reason that required someone to go unidentified. In this particular article, I’m not naming the spokeswomen because they asked to remain unnamed.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
In the future: Governor romantically linked to top donor and male escorts; refuses to resign
Combined Wire Reports
SACRAMENTO, March 19 – A defiant and unapologetic Governor Juanita Hernandez today confessed to purchasing male escorts and engaging in an extramarital affair, saying the sexual liaisons provided her with “an emotional and physical high that has long since left” her marriage.
Gov. Hernandez, 50, married with three children, was the first woman elected governor of California and the first Latino to hold the job. In a hastily called news conference today, she confirmed rumors linking her romantically to Craig Theborg, 55, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, as well as using male escorts.
“I want to put a stop to all these rumors right now,” the governor said. “Craig Theborg and I have been seeing one another for the last five years. Yes, it has been a romantic relationship. I have been with male escorts but not for what you think.
“I did it because my marriage is on the rocks,” the governor said. “These interludes provided me, especially the ones with Craig, with an emotional and physical high that has long since left my marriage.”
The rumors about the governor, the male escorts and Mr. Theborg, a longtime financial contributor to her campaigns, surfaced two days ago, when photographs of the governor, Mr. Theborg and male escorts were posted on a number of Web sites, including Glam.com and PageSix.com, a Web site owned by a tabloid newspaper, the New York Post.
The pictures showed the governor embracing and kissing Mr. Theborg, as well as entering a Sausalito motel room with him. Other pictures showed the governor presumably with male escorts in restaurants around the San Francisco metropolitan area.
In spite of a likely legal investigation into the governor’s use of the escorts, she plans to remain in her job and says she will run for re-election. The governor refused to provide any details of her involvement with the male escorts.
“I’m not stepping down,” the governor said. “I will be the governor of California until my time in office is up. I may have broken God’s law but I didn’t violate any State and Federal laws.
“And, yes, I will run for re-election.”
The governor would not discuss her marriage to Glen Droit, 53, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt School of Law. She would not discuss her future plans with either her husband or Mr. Theborg.
The governor, a Democrat and a former state attorney general, campaigned two years ago on a platform to cut the state’s crime rate as well as to put a halt to illegal immigration. She defeated San Diego businessman John Walker, a Republican, in her run for the governor’s office.
“I was sent to Sacramento to do a job, and I plan to do it,” she said. “My marriage, my relationship with my children, and my relationship with Craig are my business and no one else’s.”
Asked if she was sorry for her actions, the governor said, “If I need to apologize to anyone, I’ll do so in private – not to you. The most important thing is the children. I very much love my children and don’t want to hurt them.”
Gov. Hernandez, Mr. Droit, and their three children, two teenage sons and a daughter, live in Berkeley; the governor has been living by herself in the governor’s mansion in Sacramento, returning to the family’s home on weekends.
Mr. Droit could not be reached for comment. University officials said he conducted his classes yesterday.
“Our heart goes out to Glen and his family,” said Robert Tomlinson, dean of the Law School.
Mr. Theborg, a venture capitalist in Palo Alto, was an early investor in Google. According to his firm’s Web site, Theborg and Associates invests in technology companies. Phone calls to his office were not returned.
Theborg, a longtime donor to the Democratic Party, has chaired the finance committee for Hernandez’s campaigns for attorney general and her gubernatorial campaign. According to OpenSecrets.org, he’s donated $20,000.00 to the Democratic Party and another $12,000.00 to Hernandez’s three state-wide campaigns.
Gov. Hernandez said she met Theborg at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Los Angeles while she served in the State Assembly.
The state attorney general’s office would not return phone calls, inquiring whether they would investigate the governor’s use of male escorts or any possible discrepancy between the governor’s actions and the donations she’s received from Theborg. The U.S. Attorney’s office in San Francisco would also not comment about their possible actions.
Meantime, political support for the governor appeared to be holding up.
“The way she handled herself, standing up there all alone in front of all those cameras, this was so very brave of the governor,” said National Organization of Woman chairwoman Patty Stompt. “We’ll support her in every possible way.”
“Women have sexual and emotional needs, too,” said 85-year-old Gloria Steinem, a
longtime leader in the women’s rights movement, from her offices in New York. “For too long we’ve only associated men with sexual needs. That’s just not true. I say to Governor Hernandez, ‘You go girl.’”
“Anyone who’s ever been married understands her feelings,” said California Assemblyman Joe Hugo, D-Fresno. “I’m not saying she’s right in what she did but, you know, there are a lot of people who understand.
“I’ll continue to support her – politically and personally.”
Republicans in Sacramento refused to comment on the governor’s announcement.
The governor’s plans to remain in office put a damper on the political career of her lieutenant governor, Henry Lee. Lee, 48, a former mayor of San Francisco, is expected to remain in office, helping the governor with her legislative plans.
“He will not resign over this,” said a member of Lee’s staff who wished to remain anonymous.
Ms. Hernandez, the daughter of farm workers, grew up in Fresno and graduated from California State University in Fresno in 1992 before heading to the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt School of Law, where she met her husband. They were married shortly after she graduated.
She moved to Los Angeles in 1995 to work for a law firm before heading into public life. She was elected to the State Assembly in 2004. She became the state attorney general 2006 and was re-elected in 2010. She worked for a law firm in San Francisco before being elected governor in 2018.
Asked about her use of male escorts, the governor said, “The world’s oldest profession serves the world’s oldest need.”
03-19-2020
SACRAMENTO, March 19 – A defiant and unapologetic Governor Juanita Hernandez today confessed to purchasing male escorts and engaging in an extramarital affair, saying the sexual liaisons provided her with “an emotional and physical high that has long since left” her marriage.
Gov. Hernandez, 50, married with three children, was the first woman elected governor of California and the first Latino to hold the job. In a hastily called news conference today, she confirmed rumors linking her romantically to Craig Theborg, 55, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, as well as using male escorts.
“I want to put a stop to all these rumors right now,” the governor said. “Craig Theborg and I have been seeing one another for the last five years. Yes, it has been a romantic relationship. I have been with male escorts but not for what you think.
“I did it because my marriage is on the rocks,” the governor said. “These interludes provided me, especially the ones with Craig, with an emotional and physical high that has long since left my marriage.”
The rumors about the governor, the male escorts and Mr. Theborg, a longtime financial contributor to her campaigns, surfaced two days ago, when photographs of the governor, Mr. Theborg and male escorts were posted on a number of Web sites, including Glam.com and PageSix.com, a Web site owned by a tabloid newspaper, the New York Post.
The pictures showed the governor embracing and kissing Mr. Theborg, as well as entering a Sausalito motel room with him. Other pictures showed the governor presumably with male escorts in restaurants around the San Francisco metropolitan area.
In spite of a likely legal investigation into the governor’s use of the escorts, she plans to remain in her job and says she will run for re-election. The governor refused to provide any details of her involvement with the male escorts.
“I’m not stepping down,” the governor said. “I will be the governor of California until my time in office is up. I may have broken God’s law but I didn’t violate any State and Federal laws.
“And, yes, I will run for re-election.”
The governor would not discuss her marriage to Glen Droit, 53, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt School of Law. She would not discuss her future plans with either her husband or Mr. Theborg.
The governor, a Democrat and a former state attorney general, campaigned two years ago on a platform to cut the state’s crime rate as well as to put a halt to illegal immigration. She defeated San Diego businessman John Walker, a Republican, in her run for the governor’s office.
“I was sent to Sacramento to do a job, and I plan to do it,” she said. “My marriage, my relationship with my children, and my relationship with Craig are my business and no one else’s.”
Asked if she was sorry for her actions, the governor said, “If I need to apologize to anyone, I’ll do so in private – not to you. The most important thing is the children. I very much love my children and don’t want to hurt them.”
Gov. Hernandez, Mr. Droit, and their three children, two teenage sons and a daughter, live in Berkeley; the governor has been living by herself in the governor’s mansion in Sacramento, returning to the family’s home on weekends.
Mr. Droit could not be reached for comment. University officials said he conducted his classes yesterday.
“Our heart goes out to Glen and his family,” said Robert Tomlinson, dean of the Law School.
Mr. Theborg, a venture capitalist in Palo Alto, was an early investor in Google. According to his firm’s Web site, Theborg and Associates invests in technology companies. Phone calls to his office were not returned.
Theborg, a longtime donor to the Democratic Party, has chaired the finance committee for Hernandez’s campaigns for attorney general and her gubernatorial campaign. According to OpenSecrets.org, he’s donated $20,000.00 to the Democratic Party and another $12,000.00 to Hernandez’s three state-wide campaigns.
Gov. Hernandez said she met Theborg at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Los Angeles while she served in the State Assembly.
The state attorney general’s office would not return phone calls, inquiring whether they would investigate the governor’s use of male escorts or any possible discrepancy between the governor’s actions and the donations she’s received from Theborg. The U.S. Attorney’s office in San Francisco would also not comment about their possible actions.
Meantime, political support for the governor appeared to be holding up.
“The way she handled herself, standing up there all alone in front of all those cameras, this was so very brave of the governor,” said National Organization of Woman chairwoman Patty Stompt. “We’ll support her in every possible way.”
“Women have sexual and emotional needs, too,” said 85-year-old Gloria Steinem, a
longtime leader in the women’s rights movement, from her offices in New York. “For too long we’ve only associated men with sexual needs. That’s just not true. I say to Governor Hernandez, ‘You go girl.’”
“Anyone who’s ever been married understands her feelings,” said California Assemblyman Joe Hugo, D-Fresno. “I’m not saying she’s right in what she did but, you know, there are a lot of people who understand.
“I’ll continue to support her – politically and personally.”
Republicans in Sacramento refused to comment on the governor’s announcement.
The governor’s plans to remain in office put a damper on the political career of her lieutenant governor, Henry Lee. Lee, 48, a former mayor of San Francisco, is expected to remain in office, helping the governor with her legislative plans.
“He will not resign over this,” said a member of Lee’s staff who wished to remain anonymous.
Ms. Hernandez, the daughter of farm workers, grew up in Fresno and graduated from California State University in Fresno in 1992 before heading to the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt School of Law, where she met her husband. They were married shortly after she graduated.
She moved to Los Angeles in 1995 to work for a law firm before heading into public life. She was elected to the State Assembly in 2004. She became the state attorney general 2006 and was re-elected in 2010. She worked for a law firm in San Francisco before being elected governor in 2018.
Asked about her use of male escorts, the governor said, “The world’s oldest profession serves the world’s oldest need.”
03-19-2020
Friday, March 07, 2008
The history of the American presidency & what Lyndon would do
“In the United States … the national political agenda is a product of careless comparisons … The media contribute to this … Almost continuous political campaigns also contribute, for ‘ins’ have to allege that things are better now than they used to be, while ‘outs’ have to charge that things are getting worse. And the public at large has little immunity, first because change inheres in ‘the American way of life;’ second because most people have not had much schooling in history; and third because they have been so deluged with ‘news’ denoted ‘crisis’ that the memory cells are cluttered.” Richard E. Neustadt & Ernest R. May, Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers. New York: The Free Press, 1986.
If you caught Sen. John Kerry’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama, just ahead of the South Carolina presidential primary, you likely heard the Massachusetts Democrat say that America’s most transformational presidents were young men.
“Since the birth of our nation, change has been won by young presidents and young leaders who have shown that experience is defined not by time in Washington or years in office, but by wisdom, instinct and vision,” said Sen. Kerry in January, reported The New York Times.
There’s only one problem with Mr. Kerry’s conclusion – it’s wrong. The junior Senator from Massachusetts, educated at an Ivy League school, shows, with his endorsement, little knowledge of American history.
Of the eight men elected president while in their 40s, only two have been of any consequence: James K. Polk, a Democrat, and Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican. The others, which include Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, were of little significance in the course of American history.
To be fair, both Garfield and Kennedy were assassinated, bringing their presidencies to a quick and unfortunate halt; there will always remain questions about what their presidencies could have been and, tragically, for their sake and ours, those questions will remain unanswered.
Should his wife win both the Democratic presidential nomination and this year’s presidential election, Bill Clinton’s legacy might improve. His will be seen as the launching pad for the first woman to be elected president.
If Sen. Obama is elected president, he’ll be the ninth U.S. chief executive to be inaugurated before turning 50. If the past is prologue, the odds are stacked against Sen. Obama’s presidency being anywhere near successful. It’s likely to wind up in failure. At the very least, a President Obama won’t come close to meeting his supporters’ expectations.
Presidents Polk and Roosevelt, taking the oath of office at the ages of 49 and 42, respectively, can lay claim to being some of the country’s more transformational and successful presidents. Compared to the many of their presidential peers, both men showed high amounts of executive skills, leadership ability, rugged determination, courage of their convictions, were opportunistic and, when necessary, conniving and ruthless in accomplishing their goals.
Looking back at the 42 men to have held the presidency, only 10 come close to being considered transformational or held the job during a period of time when the country underwent fundamental and wholesale change. These 10 showed all the traits listed in the previous paragraph. They also had something in common: They were, more often than not, older than 50 when elected president or, prior to their White House years, had a record of executive leadership.
Those presidents include Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.
George Washington and Andrew Jackson deserve special mention. Washington set the tenor and tone for the presidency; his most important accomplishment was showing how a president abides by the Constitution, something that has gone all too underappreciated. Washington was the “indispensable man” because, at a time when the country was vulnerable to being taken over by a despot, he demonstrated, instead, how a president could live within a new political system.
One of Washington’s greatest accomplishments was to improve the country’s standing in the world’s leading capital markets of his day. That was when he agreed to Alexander Hamilton’s plan for the federal government to acquire the bonds the individual states had written to fund the Revolutionary War. By supporting Hamilton’s initiative, and seeing it passed by Congress, the young nation found a new source of revenue beyond tariffs and taxes. Suddenly foreign speculators in places like Amsterdam were buying the new U.S. government-backed bonds.
Washington’s presidency, however, is not transformational. Which doesn’t mean it’s any less important. His presidency was about establishing the country, placing him on a higher pedestal which no other president, no matter how successful, will ever ascend. Washington stands alone, and no one stands with him.
Jackson, one of the more colorful characters to have ever occupied The White House, was, compared to his immediate predecessors, the first common man to hold the office; his presidency, while marked with some historic events – the Nullification Proclamation and the closure of the Second Bank of the United States – did not transform the country. Jackson is the first president to stand up to the South, thereby enforcing the Constitution.
Here are some highlights of our most successful, transformational and consequential presidents:
• Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president, doubled the size of the country through the Louisiana Purchase; by doing so, he showed the power of the presidency because he negotiated and signed the agreement with France without consulting Congress. This might go down as the first presidential violation of the Constitution. He also successfully fought the Barbary Pirates by launching a Naval and Marine strike against Tripoli. The Barbary Pirates, the terrorists of that time, and had been attacking U.S. shipping. Their defeat meant that the United States no longer paid them tribute. Prior to becoming president, Jefferson had been Virginia’s governor, the U.S. secretary of state and vice president. He was 57 when he became the president.
• James K. Polk, the 11th president and the first president elected while in his 40s, brought Mexico to its knees, forcing it to surrender all of its territory north of the Rio Grande River. This gave the United States territory that stretched from Texas to California. Had Polk been more ambitious, perhaps even ruthless, or had more control over his diplomat negotiating with the Mexican government at the war’s conclusion, he could have annexed all of Mexico, bringing our southern neighbor’s existence to an end. While the Mexican-American war was in full swing, Polk successfully negotiated a treaty with Great Britain, forcing it to surrender its claims to the Oregon territory. He did this by appearing to be a war-monger and the British fell for the bluff. With these two accomplishments, Polk sees to it that the United States is a country that stretches, as the song goes, from sea to shining sea. And it was all done in the course of one presidential term. Before becoming president, Polk had been speaker of the House of Representatives and governor of Tennessee.
• Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, successfully fought the Civil War and ended slavery, thereby allowing the United States to live up to its proclamations about being a country that supported and promoted freedom for all Americans regardless of their race, creed and religion. Lincoln was 52 when he became president and had little executive experience prior to his White House years.
• William McKinley, the 25th president, a former Ohio governor and Congressional leader, transformed the United States into an empire by defeating the Spanish during our war with them in 1898, giving the United States its first territorial possessions outside of its boundaries, including the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and, for a while, Cuba. McKinley had never wanted to go to war but events and public opinion forced his hand; the most significant victory of the war was the Navy’s defeat of the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. It put the world’s considered top naval authorities, which included the British and German Admiralties as well as the Japanese, on notice that they had a new rival for command of the high seas. McKinley was 54 when he was inaugurated as president.
• Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president, came to office just shy of his 43rd birthday. His was an accidental presidency; he had been McKinley’s vice president and became president on McKinley’s assassination. Prior to becoming vice president, Roosevelt had been New York City’s police chief, New York’s governor and assistant secretary of the Navy. During his nearly eight years as president, Roosevelt’s transformed the United States into a world power. He ended the Russo-Japan war; sent the Navy on a worldwide tour, showing the world that the United States was no sleeping giant. He supported a revolution in Columbia so the territory that would become Panama could separate and become its own nation; and then, because of his support, Roosevelt successfully negotiated a treaty with the new Panamanian government for the Canal that would completely transform worldwide shipping. It also gave the United States the ability to transfer its naval ships between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans with ease, making the United States a two-ocean power. In addition, he ended a railway trust and became the country’s first “green” president by safeguarding and enlarging parts of the country from development.
• Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president, had been the governor of New Jersey and the president of Princeton University prior to becoming president of the United States. The most significant accomplishment during his presidency was the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, thereby giving the United States an effective monetary policy that’s outside of the control of the president. He also reversed a long standing tariff that had protected American industry, and he established the Federal Trade Commission, which is empowered to investigate corporate practices. His other domestic accomplishments included passing a child labor law and limiting railroad workers to an eight-hour day, something that would become part of American lexicon. He led the United States into World War I but his attempts to make the country more influential on foreign affairs were defeated by Congress. Wilson set American foreign policy for most of the 20th century when he said that the United States would fight in World War I "for things which we have carried nearest to our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free people as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free ... America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured." This proposition, the centerpiece of American foreign policy, has been advanced by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Wilson was 56 when he took office.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd president, was 51 when he was inaugurated. Prior to becoming president, FDR had been the governor of New York and, like his presidential cousin Theodore, an assistant secretary of the Navy. FDR transformed the United States into a world power by leading the country into World War II and seeing to it that had a say in global events after the war. He also pushed legislative action to end the Depression, called the New Deal, which increased the government’s role in the economy. Two of his most significant accomplishments include establishing the United Nations and the Social Security Administration.
• Harry S. Truman, the 33rd president, was the first Cold War president. He established U.S. foreign and military policy so that it could counter the Soviet Union’s attempts to achieve worldwide communism. This would become a bipartisan initiative. HST succeeded FDR upon his death in April 1945. Some of his most significant decisions included using the atomic bomb to bring about Japan’s surrender during World War II; establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the Truman Doctrine; and bringing about racial integration of the military. Truman was 60 when he took office.
• Lyndon Johnson, the 36th president, because of his years in Congress prior to becoming John Kennedy’s vice president, successfully pushed through much of the legislation that Kennedy initiated but failed to have enacted by Congress. Besides FDR, there was likely no greater presidential force on Congress than Johnson. And because he knew just about everything about every member of Congress, he saw much of his proposed legislation, called The Great Society, successfully voted upon by Congress. The Great Society program included the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment; Medicare; Medicaid; the war on domestic poverty; the Equal Opportunity Act; and Head Start. Johnson’s accomplishments also included establishing the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The great tragedy that affect’s Johnson’s legacy is the Vietnam War. Had he either unleashed his military commanders so they could fight the war as they saw fit or, instead, decided to remove U.S. forces from the Republic of Vietnam early in his presidential tenure, his legacy would be much brighter. Still, all in all, LBJ was highly effective and very much a transformational president. LBJ was 55 when he took office.
• Ronald Reagan, the 40th president, goes down as the oldest man to ever be inaugurated; he was just shy of his 70th birthday when he took the oath of office. During his presidency, he showed the Soviet Union that it would cost them far more than they had ever anticipated if they were to carry on the Cold War. Reagan forced them to the bargaining table through a strategy that was simple but understood, “We win, they lose.” By his actions, he forced the downfall of the Soviet Union and thoroughly discredited communism as credible politics. The departure of the Soviet Union made the world safer in some ways, more dangerous in others. By defeating the Soviet Union, without firing a shot at it directly, Reagan put an end to an issue that had plagued American foreign policy and military planners for nearly half of the 20th century. Prior to becoming president, Reagan had been a labor leader and a two-term governor of California.
So what makes for a transformational president?
Transformational leadership, as defined by Pulitzer Prize winning historian James MacGregor Burns, in his book Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, involves bringing about “a metamorphosis in form or structure, a change in the very condition or nature of a thing, a change into another substance, a radical change in outward form or inner character … It is change of his breadth and depth that is fostered by transformational leadership.”
Transformational leaders, Burns writes, “define public values that embrace the supreme and enduring principles of a people … Such values are not ordinarily part of the daily discourse of the citizenry. But at testing times when people confront the possibilities – and threat – of great change, powerful foundational values are evoked. They are the inspiration and guide to people who pursue and seek to shape change, and they are the standards by which the realization of the highest intentions is measured.”
It is impossible to predict what anyone will be like as president. The best ones never entered the job thinking their presidencies would stand out more than others. They were certainly ambitious politicians but they never thought they’d achieve all that they did.
The most successful and meaningful presidents knew what they wanted to do once they took office. President Polk stated that he’d expand the country during one presidential term, which may make him the only president to have lived up to all of his campaign promises. He didn’t run for re-election. Franklin Roosevelt, elected during the Depression, knew the economy needed help; he didn’t think he was going to fight Germany, Japan and Italy and discredit fascism. Witnessing Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Reagan knew he had to free U.S. hostages from Tehran and reduce Soviet influence. He never thought he’d wholesale defeat Soviet-style communism and liberate Eastern Europe.
Some of our better presidents entered office thinking they would do something entirely different than they did. Woodrow Wilson thought he’d spend his time working on domestic policy, not fighting Congress over the country’s role in global events. On his inauguration day, Lincoln did not see himself as the great emancipator. McKinley would have been perfectly happy to serve out his time in office with Spain possessing Cuba and its islands in the Pacific. The term “Cold War” hadn’t been invented when Harry Truman became president.
So what made these presidents better than others?
There are two things that stand out in their backgrounds: First, they more than likely came to the presidency with a record of executive leadership; second, they were more than likely over 50. Their record of executive leadership provided them with experience in working and leading a legislative body; it also gave them experience in leading a public body of voters and citizens. With the exception of Presidents Polk and Theodore Roosevelt, their age likely provided them with the confidence they needed to make difficult decisions, face troubling times and, perhaps, understand the nuances of the human condition.
There was also something that each successful president possessed, executive ability. Each one had the ability to understand the issues critical to success and then make the necessary decisions to turn their vision into reality.
In The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, authors Thomas E. Cronin and Michael A. Genovese suggest that presidential leadership comes from having vision, skill and political timing. “The most important ‘power’ a president can have is to present … a clear and compelling vision” for the future, they write. Visionary presidents include Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR; each is remembered for the ideas that they had on the country’s role.
Skill is shown by knowing to act when certain opportunities either present themselves or knowing what to do bring about attainment of political goals. Cronin and Genovese suggest that presidential executive skills are important but that success is also dependent on the task as well as the opportunity presented. This sounds like McKinley and the Spanish-American War. The authors say that “more experience (in politics) is better than less experience” in making a president successful.
Other important skills for presidents to possess, the authors say, include people skills. “They must know how to persuade, bargain, cajole and co-opt.” Think LBJ and the ‘Johnson Treatment,’ something the 36th president would bestow on wavering Congressman and Senators unsure of their vote on something near and dear to LBJ. Personality skills and self awareness also make for successful presidents, the authors write. Managerial skills, the authors write, help a president understand the institutional issues they face.
A president’s personal skills are also important, the authors say. A president “must be disciplined, intelligent, have stamina, show sound judgment and act with maturity. Good presidents are creative, empathetic, and expressive. They must also have a sense of humor, and learn to control their temper. President Reagan’s self-effacing sense of humor served him well as president, it disarmed his opponents and won over much of the public.”
Political timing, the authors write, is highly important in determining success for a president. A president-elect must know what they’ll do during their first 100 days in office. This is typically when a president holds the most clout to accomplish their goals. “Strong twentieth-century presidents such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan began with clear goals and pushed Congress to approve bold new programs,” the authors say.
The presidency is, on the one hand, a magnificent job, and, on the other, one filled with potential pitfalls. Americans want, simultaneously, a president who will solve their problems as well as one who will not interfere in their daily lives. At least too much.
Authors Cronin and Genovese propose nine paradoxes involving the American presidency and the American public. They include the fact that while Americans want a strong president who can solve the nation’s ills, the citizenry is equally suspicious of “strong centralized leadership.” Americans also seek a presidential candidate who can unify “diverse people … but the job requires taking firm stands, making unpopular … decisions that … upset and divide.” One of the greatest paradoxes, write the authors, is that what it takes to be elected president is often entirely different from what it takes to govern from the Oval Office.
So given what’s known about the most effective presidents we’ve had, so far, how should we vote during the remaining primaries and in the coming election? Some of that answer relies on your politics. If you’re a Democrat, and have yet to vote in the primary, you have two choices, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. If you’re a Republican, you’re likely supporting John McCain.
The best presidential candidates, based on historical information, are Senators Clinton and McCain. They’re over 50 and have some experience in executive leadership. They’re also well aware of how Congress operates and know its members. Their age and experiences will make them more effective at the presidency, should they be elected, than Sen. Obama, who’s still serving his first term in the Senate.
Sen. Obama’s resume is weak in accomplishment. Yes, he’s charismatic speaker and offers up a wonderful vision of the country. But, so far, he does not have any significant victory in public life. When Reagan hit his presidential stride in 1980, he, too, offered up wonderful speeches for what the country would look like if he was elected president; the difference between Reagan and Obama is that he’d been an effective governor of the nation’s largest state. Sen. McCain has campaign finance reform to his name; Sen. Clinton’s failed initiative to reform healthcare, during her years as the First Lady, provides her with great insight on what needs to be done to make healthcare more accessible to all Americans – and how to get it accomplished. Failure can often lead to success.
Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers, by Richard E. Neustadt & Ernest R. May, was originally intended for people in government. The idea behind the book was to educate government decision makers on a few historical examples, so they’d know to use previous experiences, historical ones even, as they considered policies that would affect the future.
You may wonder, then, what this means to you. If you’re a citizen, and a registered voter, you are the government. The lessons of Neustadt and May equally apply to you as to any government policy maker. Know the past, think in time, and you’ll likely make a better decision about the future. The authors’ lessons especially apply to you as you consider who you will vote for in the upcoming election. If you’re a Democrat, your best choice is Sen. Clinton. If you’re a Republican, even though the presidential primary is effectively concluded, your best choice was always Sen. McCain.
------------------------------------------------
This year’s Democratic presidential primary, if you heard the endorsement from Sen. Ted Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, is akin to the one in 1960, when another young charismatic Senator from Massachusetts, John Kennedy, ran for the nomination. He was up against some of the Democratic Party’s best veterans, Senators Humphrey, Symington and Johnson.
Johnson lost the nomination to Kennedy at the Democratic Presidential convention in Los Angeles. Johnson, Kennedy thought, had been the best Senate Majority leader in the country’s history. And while Kennedy didn’t like Johnson, he knew he needed him on the ticket to be elected. Johnson would strengthen the ticket’s standing in the South and the West.
Johnson could have remained in the Senate but he knew his position as majority leader would be very much diminished if Kennedy was elected; he also knew that Richard Nixon, if elected president, wouldn’t be as gracious to him as President Eisenhower. He was caught between a rock and hard place. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the noted historian, has suggested that Johnson thought his presence on the Kennedy ticket would help the South move into the twentieth century.
Johnson, however, had to be convinced to take the job. A number of his advisors told him not to accept Kennedy’s overtures. What moved Johnson especially was the counsel he received from his political mentor, former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, who told Johnson, in essence, it would be beneficial for him, as well as the country (and Texas) if he joined Kennedy’s ticket.
It appears that Senators Clinton and Obama are on course similar to that of Kennedy and Johnson. And the question is who will make the phone call to suggest to either Senator to join the other’s ticket, so the party is unified for the general election. Possible candidates for this task include but aren’t limited to former Vice President Al Gore, former President Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Walter Mondale and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
Who will be the great unifier for the Democratic Party? It remains to be seen.
If LBJ were alive, he’d tell that Senator, either Clinton or Obama, to accept the other’s invitation to be on the ticket. The election, he would say, must be won. The party needs to unify for the good of the country, he would say. And if the Democratic presidential ticket – whether it’s Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton – is elected, it would be a culmination of the civil rights battles that LBJ had fought for during his career. There’s no better way to mark the 36th president’s 100th birthday.
Sources:
A History of the American People, Paul Johnson, New York: HarperCollins, 1997.
Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822 – 1832, Rover V. Remini, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1981
Hamilton’s Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of our National Debt, John Steele Gordon, New York: Walker and Company, 1997.
James K. Polk, John Seigenthaler, New York: Times Books, Henry Holt & Company, 2003.
Leadership, James MacGregor Burns, New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1978.
The Leadership Factor, John P. Kotter, New York: The Free Press, 1988.
Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and his times, 1908 – 1960, Robert Dallek, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, Randall B. Woods, New York: Free Press, 2006.
Oregon: A History, Gordon B. Dodds, New York: W. W. Nortorn & Company, Inc., 1977.
The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, Thomas E. Cronin & Michael A. Genovese, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Presidential Ambition: How the Presidents Gained Power, Kept Power and Got Things Done, Richard Shenkman, New York: Harper Collins, 1999.
Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan, Richard E. Neustadt, New York: The Free Press, 1990.
Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, James MacGregor Burns, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003.
The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, Philip Bobbitt, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.
The Use of Presidential Power, 1789 – 1943, George Fort Milton, New York: Octagon Books, 1965.
Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers, Richard E. Neustadt & Ernest R. May, New York: The Free Press, 1986
WhiteHouse.gov, official Web site of The White House
If you caught Sen. John Kerry’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama, just ahead of the South Carolina presidential primary, you likely heard the Massachusetts Democrat say that America’s most transformational presidents were young men.
“Since the birth of our nation, change has been won by young presidents and young leaders who have shown that experience is defined not by time in Washington or years in office, but by wisdom, instinct and vision,” said Sen. Kerry in January, reported The New York Times.
There’s only one problem with Mr. Kerry’s conclusion – it’s wrong. The junior Senator from Massachusetts, educated at an Ivy League school, shows, with his endorsement, little knowledge of American history.
Of the eight men elected president while in their 40s, only two have been of any consequence: James K. Polk, a Democrat, and Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican. The others, which include Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, were of little significance in the course of American history.
To be fair, both Garfield and Kennedy were assassinated, bringing their presidencies to a quick and unfortunate halt; there will always remain questions about what their presidencies could have been and, tragically, for their sake and ours, those questions will remain unanswered.
Should his wife win both the Democratic presidential nomination and this year’s presidential election, Bill Clinton’s legacy might improve. His will be seen as the launching pad for the first woman to be elected president.
If Sen. Obama is elected president, he’ll be the ninth U.S. chief executive to be inaugurated before turning 50. If the past is prologue, the odds are stacked against Sen. Obama’s presidency being anywhere near successful. It’s likely to wind up in failure. At the very least, a President Obama won’t come close to meeting his supporters’ expectations.
Presidents Polk and Roosevelt, taking the oath of office at the ages of 49 and 42, respectively, can lay claim to being some of the country’s more transformational and successful presidents. Compared to the many of their presidential peers, both men showed high amounts of executive skills, leadership ability, rugged determination, courage of their convictions, were opportunistic and, when necessary, conniving and ruthless in accomplishing their goals.
Looking back at the 42 men to have held the presidency, only 10 come close to being considered transformational or held the job during a period of time when the country underwent fundamental and wholesale change. These 10 showed all the traits listed in the previous paragraph. They also had something in common: They were, more often than not, older than 50 when elected president or, prior to their White House years, had a record of executive leadership.
Those presidents include Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.
George Washington and Andrew Jackson deserve special mention. Washington set the tenor and tone for the presidency; his most important accomplishment was showing how a president abides by the Constitution, something that has gone all too underappreciated. Washington was the “indispensable man” because, at a time when the country was vulnerable to being taken over by a despot, he demonstrated, instead, how a president could live within a new political system.
One of Washington’s greatest accomplishments was to improve the country’s standing in the world’s leading capital markets of his day. That was when he agreed to Alexander Hamilton’s plan for the federal government to acquire the bonds the individual states had written to fund the Revolutionary War. By supporting Hamilton’s initiative, and seeing it passed by Congress, the young nation found a new source of revenue beyond tariffs and taxes. Suddenly foreign speculators in places like Amsterdam were buying the new U.S. government-backed bonds.
Washington’s presidency, however, is not transformational. Which doesn’t mean it’s any less important. His presidency was about establishing the country, placing him on a higher pedestal which no other president, no matter how successful, will ever ascend. Washington stands alone, and no one stands with him.
Jackson, one of the more colorful characters to have ever occupied The White House, was, compared to his immediate predecessors, the first common man to hold the office; his presidency, while marked with some historic events – the Nullification Proclamation and the closure of the Second Bank of the United States – did not transform the country. Jackson is the first president to stand up to the South, thereby enforcing the Constitution.
Here are some highlights of our most successful, transformational and consequential presidents:
• Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president, doubled the size of the country through the Louisiana Purchase; by doing so, he showed the power of the presidency because he negotiated and signed the agreement with France without consulting Congress. This might go down as the first presidential violation of the Constitution. He also successfully fought the Barbary Pirates by launching a Naval and Marine strike against Tripoli. The Barbary Pirates, the terrorists of that time, and had been attacking U.S. shipping. Their defeat meant that the United States no longer paid them tribute. Prior to becoming president, Jefferson had been Virginia’s governor, the U.S. secretary of state and vice president. He was 57 when he became the president.
• James K. Polk, the 11th president and the first president elected while in his 40s, brought Mexico to its knees, forcing it to surrender all of its territory north of the Rio Grande River. This gave the United States territory that stretched from Texas to California. Had Polk been more ambitious, perhaps even ruthless, or had more control over his diplomat negotiating with the Mexican government at the war’s conclusion, he could have annexed all of Mexico, bringing our southern neighbor’s existence to an end. While the Mexican-American war was in full swing, Polk successfully negotiated a treaty with Great Britain, forcing it to surrender its claims to the Oregon territory. He did this by appearing to be a war-monger and the British fell for the bluff. With these two accomplishments, Polk sees to it that the United States is a country that stretches, as the song goes, from sea to shining sea. And it was all done in the course of one presidential term. Before becoming president, Polk had been speaker of the House of Representatives and governor of Tennessee.
• Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, successfully fought the Civil War and ended slavery, thereby allowing the United States to live up to its proclamations about being a country that supported and promoted freedom for all Americans regardless of their race, creed and religion. Lincoln was 52 when he became president and had little executive experience prior to his White House years.
• William McKinley, the 25th president, a former Ohio governor and Congressional leader, transformed the United States into an empire by defeating the Spanish during our war with them in 1898, giving the United States its first territorial possessions outside of its boundaries, including the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and, for a while, Cuba. McKinley had never wanted to go to war but events and public opinion forced his hand; the most significant victory of the war was the Navy’s defeat of the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. It put the world’s considered top naval authorities, which included the British and German Admiralties as well as the Japanese, on notice that they had a new rival for command of the high seas. McKinley was 54 when he was inaugurated as president.
• Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president, came to office just shy of his 43rd birthday. His was an accidental presidency; he had been McKinley’s vice president and became president on McKinley’s assassination. Prior to becoming vice president, Roosevelt had been New York City’s police chief, New York’s governor and assistant secretary of the Navy. During his nearly eight years as president, Roosevelt’s transformed the United States into a world power. He ended the Russo-Japan war; sent the Navy on a worldwide tour, showing the world that the United States was no sleeping giant. He supported a revolution in Columbia so the territory that would become Panama could separate and become its own nation; and then, because of his support, Roosevelt successfully negotiated a treaty with the new Panamanian government for the Canal that would completely transform worldwide shipping. It also gave the United States the ability to transfer its naval ships between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans with ease, making the United States a two-ocean power. In addition, he ended a railway trust and became the country’s first “green” president by safeguarding and enlarging parts of the country from development.
• Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president, had been the governor of New Jersey and the president of Princeton University prior to becoming president of the United States. The most significant accomplishment during his presidency was the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, thereby giving the United States an effective monetary policy that’s outside of the control of the president. He also reversed a long standing tariff that had protected American industry, and he established the Federal Trade Commission, which is empowered to investigate corporate practices. His other domestic accomplishments included passing a child labor law and limiting railroad workers to an eight-hour day, something that would become part of American lexicon. He led the United States into World War I but his attempts to make the country more influential on foreign affairs were defeated by Congress. Wilson set American foreign policy for most of the 20th century when he said that the United States would fight in World War I "for things which we have carried nearest to our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free people as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free ... America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured." This proposition, the centerpiece of American foreign policy, has been advanced by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Wilson was 56 when he took office.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd president, was 51 when he was inaugurated. Prior to becoming president, FDR had been the governor of New York and, like his presidential cousin Theodore, an assistant secretary of the Navy. FDR transformed the United States into a world power by leading the country into World War II and seeing to it that had a say in global events after the war. He also pushed legislative action to end the Depression, called the New Deal, which increased the government’s role in the economy. Two of his most significant accomplishments include establishing the United Nations and the Social Security Administration.
• Harry S. Truman, the 33rd president, was the first Cold War president. He established U.S. foreign and military policy so that it could counter the Soviet Union’s attempts to achieve worldwide communism. This would become a bipartisan initiative. HST succeeded FDR upon his death in April 1945. Some of his most significant decisions included using the atomic bomb to bring about Japan’s surrender during World War II; establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the Truman Doctrine; and bringing about racial integration of the military. Truman was 60 when he took office.
• Lyndon Johnson, the 36th president, because of his years in Congress prior to becoming John Kennedy’s vice president, successfully pushed through much of the legislation that Kennedy initiated but failed to have enacted by Congress. Besides FDR, there was likely no greater presidential force on Congress than Johnson. And because he knew just about everything about every member of Congress, he saw much of his proposed legislation, called The Great Society, successfully voted upon by Congress. The Great Society program included the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment; Medicare; Medicaid; the war on domestic poverty; the Equal Opportunity Act; and Head Start. Johnson’s accomplishments also included establishing the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The great tragedy that affect’s Johnson’s legacy is the Vietnam War. Had he either unleashed his military commanders so they could fight the war as they saw fit or, instead, decided to remove U.S. forces from the Republic of Vietnam early in his presidential tenure, his legacy would be much brighter. Still, all in all, LBJ was highly effective and very much a transformational president. LBJ was 55 when he took office.
• Ronald Reagan, the 40th president, goes down as the oldest man to ever be inaugurated; he was just shy of his 70th birthday when he took the oath of office. During his presidency, he showed the Soviet Union that it would cost them far more than they had ever anticipated if they were to carry on the Cold War. Reagan forced them to the bargaining table through a strategy that was simple but understood, “We win, they lose.” By his actions, he forced the downfall of the Soviet Union and thoroughly discredited communism as credible politics. The departure of the Soviet Union made the world safer in some ways, more dangerous in others. By defeating the Soviet Union, without firing a shot at it directly, Reagan put an end to an issue that had plagued American foreign policy and military planners for nearly half of the 20th century. Prior to becoming president, Reagan had been a labor leader and a two-term governor of California.
So what makes for a transformational president?
Transformational leadership, as defined by Pulitzer Prize winning historian James MacGregor Burns, in his book Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, involves bringing about “a metamorphosis in form or structure, a change in the very condition or nature of a thing, a change into another substance, a radical change in outward form or inner character … It is change of his breadth and depth that is fostered by transformational leadership.”
Transformational leaders, Burns writes, “define public values that embrace the supreme and enduring principles of a people … Such values are not ordinarily part of the daily discourse of the citizenry. But at testing times when people confront the possibilities – and threat – of great change, powerful foundational values are evoked. They are the inspiration and guide to people who pursue and seek to shape change, and they are the standards by which the realization of the highest intentions is measured.”
It is impossible to predict what anyone will be like as president. The best ones never entered the job thinking their presidencies would stand out more than others. They were certainly ambitious politicians but they never thought they’d achieve all that they did.
The most successful and meaningful presidents knew what they wanted to do once they took office. President Polk stated that he’d expand the country during one presidential term, which may make him the only president to have lived up to all of his campaign promises. He didn’t run for re-election. Franklin Roosevelt, elected during the Depression, knew the economy needed help; he didn’t think he was going to fight Germany, Japan and Italy and discredit fascism. Witnessing Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Reagan knew he had to free U.S. hostages from Tehran and reduce Soviet influence. He never thought he’d wholesale defeat Soviet-style communism and liberate Eastern Europe.
Some of our better presidents entered office thinking they would do something entirely different than they did. Woodrow Wilson thought he’d spend his time working on domestic policy, not fighting Congress over the country’s role in global events. On his inauguration day, Lincoln did not see himself as the great emancipator. McKinley would have been perfectly happy to serve out his time in office with Spain possessing Cuba and its islands in the Pacific. The term “Cold War” hadn’t been invented when Harry Truman became president.
So what made these presidents better than others?
There are two things that stand out in their backgrounds: First, they more than likely came to the presidency with a record of executive leadership; second, they were more than likely over 50. Their record of executive leadership provided them with experience in working and leading a legislative body; it also gave them experience in leading a public body of voters and citizens. With the exception of Presidents Polk and Theodore Roosevelt, their age likely provided them with the confidence they needed to make difficult decisions, face troubling times and, perhaps, understand the nuances of the human condition.
There was also something that each successful president possessed, executive ability. Each one had the ability to understand the issues critical to success and then make the necessary decisions to turn their vision into reality.
In The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, authors Thomas E. Cronin and Michael A. Genovese suggest that presidential leadership comes from having vision, skill and political timing. “The most important ‘power’ a president can have is to present … a clear and compelling vision” for the future, they write. Visionary presidents include Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR; each is remembered for the ideas that they had on the country’s role.
Skill is shown by knowing to act when certain opportunities either present themselves or knowing what to do bring about attainment of political goals. Cronin and Genovese suggest that presidential executive skills are important but that success is also dependent on the task as well as the opportunity presented. This sounds like McKinley and the Spanish-American War. The authors say that “more experience (in politics) is better than less experience” in making a president successful.
Other important skills for presidents to possess, the authors say, include people skills. “They must know how to persuade, bargain, cajole and co-opt.” Think LBJ and the ‘Johnson Treatment,’ something the 36th president would bestow on wavering Congressman and Senators unsure of their vote on something near and dear to LBJ. Personality skills and self awareness also make for successful presidents, the authors write. Managerial skills, the authors write, help a president understand the institutional issues they face.
A president’s personal skills are also important, the authors say. A president “must be disciplined, intelligent, have stamina, show sound judgment and act with maturity. Good presidents are creative, empathetic, and expressive. They must also have a sense of humor, and learn to control their temper. President Reagan’s self-effacing sense of humor served him well as president, it disarmed his opponents and won over much of the public.”
Political timing, the authors write, is highly important in determining success for a president. A president-elect must know what they’ll do during their first 100 days in office. This is typically when a president holds the most clout to accomplish their goals. “Strong twentieth-century presidents such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan began with clear goals and pushed Congress to approve bold new programs,” the authors say.
The presidency is, on the one hand, a magnificent job, and, on the other, one filled with potential pitfalls. Americans want, simultaneously, a president who will solve their problems as well as one who will not interfere in their daily lives. At least too much.
Authors Cronin and Genovese propose nine paradoxes involving the American presidency and the American public. They include the fact that while Americans want a strong president who can solve the nation’s ills, the citizenry is equally suspicious of “strong centralized leadership.” Americans also seek a presidential candidate who can unify “diverse people … but the job requires taking firm stands, making unpopular … decisions that … upset and divide.” One of the greatest paradoxes, write the authors, is that what it takes to be elected president is often entirely different from what it takes to govern from the Oval Office.
So given what’s known about the most effective presidents we’ve had, so far, how should we vote during the remaining primaries and in the coming election? Some of that answer relies on your politics. If you’re a Democrat, and have yet to vote in the primary, you have two choices, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. If you’re a Republican, you’re likely supporting John McCain.
The best presidential candidates, based on historical information, are Senators Clinton and McCain. They’re over 50 and have some experience in executive leadership. They’re also well aware of how Congress operates and know its members. Their age and experiences will make them more effective at the presidency, should they be elected, than Sen. Obama, who’s still serving his first term in the Senate.
Sen. Obama’s resume is weak in accomplishment. Yes, he’s charismatic speaker and offers up a wonderful vision of the country. But, so far, he does not have any significant victory in public life. When Reagan hit his presidential stride in 1980, he, too, offered up wonderful speeches for what the country would look like if he was elected president; the difference between Reagan and Obama is that he’d been an effective governor of the nation’s largest state. Sen. McCain has campaign finance reform to his name; Sen. Clinton’s failed initiative to reform healthcare, during her years as the First Lady, provides her with great insight on what needs to be done to make healthcare more accessible to all Americans – and how to get it accomplished. Failure can often lead to success.
Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers, by Richard E. Neustadt & Ernest R. May, was originally intended for people in government. The idea behind the book was to educate government decision makers on a few historical examples, so they’d know to use previous experiences, historical ones even, as they considered policies that would affect the future.
You may wonder, then, what this means to you. If you’re a citizen, and a registered voter, you are the government. The lessons of Neustadt and May equally apply to you as to any government policy maker. Know the past, think in time, and you’ll likely make a better decision about the future. The authors’ lessons especially apply to you as you consider who you will vote for in the upcoming election. If you’re a Democrat, your best choice is Sen. Clinton. If you’re a Republican, even though the presidential primary is effectively concluded, your best choice was always Sen. McCain.
------------------------------------------------
This year’s Democratic presidential primary, if you heard the endorsement from Sen. Ted Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, is akin to the one in 1960, when another young charismatic Senator from Massachusetts, John Kennedy, ran for the nomination. He was up against some of the Democratic Party’s best veterans, Senators Humphrey, Symington and Johnson.
Johnson lost the nomination to Kennedy at the Democratic Presidential convention in Los Angeles. Johnson, Kennedy thought, had been the best Senate Majority leader in the country’s history. And while Kennedy didn’t like Johnson, he knew he needed him on the ticket to be elected. Johnson would strengthen the ticket’s standing in the South and the West.
Johnson could have remained in the Senate but he knew his position as majority leader would be very much diminished if Kennedy was elected; he also knew that Richard Nixon, if elected president, wouldn’t be as gracious to him as President Eisenhower. He was caught between a rock and hard place. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the noted historian, has suggested that Johnson thought his presence on the Kennedy ticket would help the South move into the twentieth century.
Johnson, however, had to be convinced to take the job. A number of his advisors told him not to accept Kennedy’s overtures. What moved Johnson especially was the counsel he received from his political mentor, former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, who told Johnson, in essence, it would be beneficial for him, as well as the country (and Texas) if he joined Kennedy’s ticket.
It appears that Senators Clinton and Obama are on course similar to that of Kennedy and Johnson. And the question is who will make the phone call to suggest to either Senator to join the other’s ticket, so the party is unified for the general election. Possible candidates for this task include but aren’t limited to former Vice President Al Gore, former President Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Walter Mondale and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
Who will be the great unifier for the Democratic Party? It remains to be seen.
If LBJ were alive, he’d tell that Senator, either Clinton or Obama, to accept the other’s invitation to be on the ticket. The election, he would say, must be won. The party needs to unify for the good of the country, he would say. And if the Democratic presidential ticket – whether it’s Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton – is elected, it would be a culmination of the civil rights battles that LBJ had fought for during his career. There’s no better way to mark the 36th president’s 100th birthday.
Sources:
A History of the American People, Paul Johnson, New York: HarperCollins, 1997.
Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822 – 1832, Rover V. Remini, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1981
Hamilton’s Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of our National Debt, John Steele Gordon, New York: Walker and Company, 1997.
James K. Polk, John Seigenthaler, New York: Times Books, Henry Holt & Company, 2003.
Leadership, James MacGregor Burns, New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1978.
The Leadership Factor, John P. Kotter, New York: The Free Press, 1988.
Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and his times, 1908 – 1960, Robert Dallek, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, Randall B. Woods, New York: Free Press, 2006.
Oregon: A History, Gordon B. Dodds, New York: W. W. Nortorn & Company, Inc., 1977.
The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, Thomas E. Cronin & Michael A. Genovese, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Presidential Ambition: How the Presidents Gained Power, Kept Power and Got Things Done, Richard Shenkman, New York: Harper Collins, 1999.
Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan, Richard E. Neustadt, New York: The Free Press, 1990.
Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, James MacGregor Burns, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003.
The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, Philip Bobbitt, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.
The Use of Presidential Power, 1789 – 1943, George Fort Milton, New York: Octagon Books, 1965.
Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers, Richard E. Neustadt & Ernest R. May, New York: The Free Press, 1986
WhiteHouse.gov, official Web site of The White House
Monday, November 12, 2007
Lost in American History
QUINCY, MASS. – One of America’s most forgotten leaders occupies a place of honor in the house of two of America’s most forgotten presidents.
Dr. Joseph Warren, a leading physician and a general in the Massachusetts revolutionary militia, was, effectively, the commanding officer of the army unit that fought one of America’s greatest battles against British troops. The militia, with an outstanding showing in earlier skirmishes against the Redcoats, at Lexington and Concord, in April 1775, would fight across Boston Harbor, in Charlestown, on ground that would later become a consecrated part of the American Revolution, Bunker Hill.
On that fateful June day, Dr. Warren did something that no American general has ever done since: He placed his second in command, Israel Putnam, in charge of the army, telling him that he could better serve the cause if he placed himself directly in harm’s way. Dr. Warren then took his place with the troops in the front line.
It’s difficult to say how much of an inspiration Dr. Warren was to his fellow soldiers. Certainly, they weren’t expecting a man of his social prominence to stand among them to battle the enemy.
Some reports say that the men cheered once they recognized that Dr. Warren would join them – as one of them – a lowly solider fighting, and likely dieing, for the cause. Others say the men had no reaction to Warren’s presence.
Warren had been a very public and a leading figure in the Patriot cause, heading up the Massachusetts Provincial Congress as well as a principal figure, with John Hancock and Samuel Adams, in protesting various Parliamentary acts considered by the colonists, especially those in Boston, to be repressive.
Warren was one of Boston’s leading men and top physicians. As would have been appropriate for a man of his stature during his time, he married very well. 18-year-old Elizabeth Hooten, considered one of the most beautiful ladies of her day, from one of Boston’s wealthiest families, was his wife, and she bore him four children until her untimely death, at 26, in 1772.
John and Abigail Adams admired Dr. Warren because he was one of the most innovative physicians, inoculating their children, as well as other patients, against smallpox, a leading killer in the 18th century. He was also one of the Adams’ dearest friends.
It’s thought that Warren had a premonition about his fate at Bunker Hill. The night before the battle, he dined with Betsy Palmer, whose husband had fought at Lexington. At the end of the meal, Dr. Warren suggested that they have one last drink before leaving one another – for good.
Just prior to the battle, Dr. Warren, who had just been commissioned a major general, called on Israel Putnam, the general commanding the militia assembled to fight on Bunker Hill. Putnam told Warren that he was prepared to accept his orders.
Warren invoked a technicality. While he was aware that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress had elected him a major general, he was also equally aware that he hadn’t actually received the commission by the time he arrived at Bunker Hill. So rather than take up his new position, which Putnam expected him to do, Warren, instead, inquired where the brunt of the fighting would occur. Putnam said it would be by their fortifications on Breed’s Hill, just below Bunker Hill. Warren dismissed himself and headed off to the front lines, where he met the militia’s battlefield commander, Colonel William Prescott.
One of America’s finest officers, so much so that the British offered him a commission in the regular army after the French-Indian War, Prescott attempted to dissuade Warren from his actions. But Warren wouldn’t hear of it. He insisted he was there to do his job as he saw fit – fight the British as a volunteer private – and took his place among the farmers, small merchants and tradesman making up the rebel army.
By doing so, he was violating 18th century social protocol. Men like Warren, educated and wealthy, were expected to command people making up the rebel army – not fight directly alongside of them as a peer.
Twenty-two hundred British troops squared off against 1,500 American volunteers at Breeds Hill on June 17, 1775. The Redcoats marched up the hill three times before finally overwhelming the colonial army. The cost to Great Britain: 268 killed. 828 wounded. The colonists suffered 115 dead and 305 wounded.
18th century battlefield tactics were, by today’s standards, suicidal. Opposing sides lined up out in the open without taking cover. Each side could see the enemy it faced.
Lined up side by side, British troops marched up Breed’s Hill toward the American lines. The British were likely under the impression that just by marching up the hill, with their swords and muskets gleaming, the Americans would run away.
Instead, Dr. Warren and his fellow soldiers successfully stopped two British advances. Twice the American forces fired their muskets at near point-blank range, around 150 feet, inflicting numerous casualties. As a result, British lines collapsed twice as their dead and wounded fell to the ground.
“’As we approached, an incessant stream of fire poured from the rebel line; it seemed a continued sheet of fire for near thirty minutes,’” reported one British officer.
With the battle’s outcome in the balance, Britain’s leading general on the battlefield that day, William Howe, refused to be defeated. He regrouped his forces and sent them right back up the hill for a third march. He likely knew that the Americans couldn’t win a battle of attrition.
Just prior to encountering the enemy for a third time, Colonel Prescott suggested to Dr. Warren that he remove himself from the ranks, so his life would be spared.
Dr. Warren refused to leave.
By this time every American soldier was aware that they were short on ammunition, gunpowder and men.
The Americans, as they had done the two previous times, waited until the British troops were near them, around 150 feet. They fired their muskets but this volley, unlike previous ones, was no where near as effective because of the lack of ammunition as well as the number of American wounded and dead.
As the enemy continued its approach, many Americans fled either because they were out of ammunition or scared. Warren and a number of others stayed. Out of ammunition, the doctor turned his musket into a club and started swinging it at the British. Soon he drew his sword, holding his ground, determined to fight. A British officer drew his weapon and fired at Warren, striking him in the head. Warren immediately placed a hand over the wound, turned his torso slightly and fell to the ground dead. Dr. Warren was 34.
The British had secured victory. Had General Howe possessed a killer instinct, British troops would have pursued the fleeing Americans. Instead, His Majesty’s soldiers tended to their wounded and dead and took prisoners.
Dr. Warren’s death was significant, not only for the Americans but also for the British. His name was synonymous with the rebel cause. One British general, John Burgoyne, went to Charlestown to identify the body. Warren’s death, reported one historian, seemed to leave the rebels “virtually headless.”
One British officer, in charge of the burial detail from the battle, recognized Dr. Warren and boasted that he “’stuffed the scoundrel with another Rebel into one hole and there he and his seditious principles may remain.’”
Dr. Warren’s remains were later dug up and positively identified for the Americans by Paul Revere. He had inserted two false teeth into Warren. When he came across Warren’s body, he opened his mouth, found the false teeth and confirmed Warren’s death.
The battle, one of the most significant ones during the Revolution, showed that America’s rag-tag, volunteer army could fight against a seasoned, disciplined, professional and highly trained force. It inflicted casualties on nearly 50 percent of the enemy’s troops and held its ground until it ran out of ammunition – or was wounded and killed.
The British were shocked by their losses, with one officer writing, “’Damn the Rebels – that they would not flinch.’” Britain’s generals in America realized they were in for a long, hard fight and success wasn’t guaranteed.
It’ll be long debated why some men, who aren’t expected to make such a sacrifice, do so. Maybe Dr. Warren was still mourning the loss of his young wife; perhaps he felt overburdened about having to care for his children, even though he likely had assistance; perhaps he was the greatest Patriot to have ever lived, believing that he should fight, even die, for a cause to which he had contributed so many words, inspired so many and which he also led. Or, possibly, Dr. Warren thought it was abhorrent to let others fight for principles he helped create.
It’s hard to say what Dr. Warren was thinking just prior to his death. He didn’t leave much behind in terms of correspondence. John Adams thought Dr. Warren was a hero.
Sixth months prior to Bunker Hill, Dr. Warren believed that the American colonies and British Crown could resolve their differences. When he died, the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, was formulating a course of action against the British, including appointing a commanding general (George Washington) of the army units assembled in Massachusetts, just outside of Charlestown. At the time of Warren’s death, the idea of seeking independence from the Crown was just beginning to be debated in Philadelphia. It’s quite possible that Dr. Warren died thinking he was a loyal British subject, seeking to redress the rights he thought had been trampled upon by Parliament and the king.
Today, Dr. Warren’s portrait graces the living room mantle of the house that John and Abigail Adams occupied for 30 years in Quincy, just south of Boston. It’s one of the first pictures visitors notice as they enter the living room. Not even George Washington, a man the second president greatly admired, occupies such a place of honor. His portrait hangs in the hallway.
Unlike so many historical houses, everything in this one is original, from the furniture to the china and crystal collections to the living room wallpaper. Abigail bought the house, called Peacefield, in 1788. The house was occupied by a member of the Adams family for nearly 140 years.
(As you walk through the house, you’re exposed to replicas of the 3,800 books that were owned by John Adams. His original books are under lock and key at the Boston Public Library. Adams grandson built a library behind the house in the 1870s and it stores 14,000 volumes owned by various members of the Adams family. You can’t help but to feel the intellectual inferior of men long since passed.)
John Adams was not the greatest president of the United States. In fact, compared to the one he served as vice president, George Washington, he was a complete failure. One-term presidents don’t last long in America’s collective memory bank. What makes Adams great, compared to other one-term presidents, as well as a few two-term presidents, is his work during and after the Revolution and the fact that he was one of the country’s best students of politics.
He was the leading constitutional scholar of his day, writing books and articles that explained and defended them. Adams knowledge of constitutions and politics was so profound he was asked to write the constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (He was also one of the Commonwealth’s favorite sons in the 1770s.) It’s the world’s oldest, written constitution and political scholars consider it a forerunner to the U.S. Constitution.
(Many of the original 13 states also wrote and passed constitutions in the 1770s, ahead of Massachusetts. For example, the Virginia legislature ratified its first constitution in 1776. But many of the constitutions that were passed during those early days of the Republic, including that of Virginia, were later re-written. The constitution that John Adams wrote for Massachusetts remains in effect today, making it the world’s oldest, written constitution.)
John Adams’ resume is long: he was an outstanding lawyer; he represented Massachusetts in both Continental Congresses; and he was one of the first voices to push for independence; and he wrote the oldest constitution in effect today. It was his speech, at the Second Continental Congress, that persuaded the colonists to seek liberation from London.
In addition, Adams represented the United States in Europe, securing diplomatic ties and loans for the young country. He was also the first U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, establishing a working relationship with the king his country had fought so hard against, George III.
But the single greatest thing John Adams did, which doesn’t receive the prominence it deserves, is show how a defeated political leader leaves office. He didn’t turn to his allies and friends to organize an army to fight his opponents so he could hold the office he had lost in an election. Instead, like those who would succeed him, he headed home to become a private citizen – peacefully.
By this very act, Adams showed that the democracy he and his fellow founders worked to create functioned. President Adams demonstrated that America could change presidents and political parties without gunfire. By acting in such a manner, he becomes one of the most remarkable political figures to have ever graced the United States. Every time a defeated president peacefully observes their successor’s inauguration, the American Revolution and the Constitution are kept alive and John Adams is saluted.
John Adams also showed retired and defeated political leaders that there’s life after the office. He worked on his farm, doted on his family, wrote down his thoughts and re-established his friendship with Thomas Jefferson. None of this came easy. Adams left office a bitter man and it took a number of years for him to recover from the pain he felt from having been defeated in his reelection attempt.
The correspondence between Adams and Jefferson should be read by every American. Adams told Jefferson, in one letter, that he’d be long forgotten while Jefferson would be long remembered. How right he was.
Unlike the other leading Founding Fathers, John Adams was the only one to produce a son who would enter national politics. It must have come as quite the shock to Jefferson to see the son of his one-time foe become the president.
John Quincy was as much of a student of politics and law as his father, becoming one of America’s finest diplomats. In fact, many of the principles he laid down as secretary of state formed the foundations of U.S. foreign policy for nearly 100 years. Some of them continue to this very day. And yet, today, like his father, John Quincy is a figure lost in American history.
John Quincy’s presidency was hardly distinguishable. He pressed for roads and canals that would connect distant parts of the young nation. Like his father, he would only serve as president for one term. He had a far more remarkable career in the House of Representatives, where he served after having been the nation’s sixth president. To date, he is the only president to later serve in Congress.
Ask the average American to name the first four or five presidents and they’ll likely say, “George Washington … Thomas Jefferson … “ and that’s where they stop. Even James Madison and James Monroe, the fourth and fifth presidents, respectively, aren’t likely recalled; and they each served eight years as president. More often than not, John Adams is overlooked.
It’s historical irony that Dr. Warren, John Adams and John Quincy, who contributed so much, whose names were so widely known, and were so influential, become such lost figures in the American story. This appears to be the tie that binds them but there are a few others, too.
They did the unexpected. John Adams could have sat out the Revolution and no one was pressing him to make a speech on behalf of independence at the Second Continental Congress. Adams could also have acted very differently after losing the presidential election in 1800 to Thomas Jefferson. Instead, he left office peacefully and became a private citizen. Dr. Warren didn’t have to fight at Bunker Hill. He could have remained far to the rear, observing the battle from relative safety. Instead, he went to the front lines, making the ultimate sacrifice. John Quincy, a highly educated man, pressed for a national university and helped to found the Smithsonian, thinking that all Americans should possess as much knowledge as they could acquire. He was also a vociferous advocate to end slavery. And while he could have stayed home after losing the presidency – which would have been accepted and expected by his peers – he, instead, served his congressional district in the House of Representatives, something he didn’t consider beneath the stature of a former president.
Each of these men did what that they thought was correct – the immediate consequences be damned. Expedient, cautious and retiring are words that could never describe them. Brave, intelligent, idealistic, and determined are just a few of the words that come to mind, instead. It’s a tragedy these remarkable men, some of the finest sons America ever produced, who should be emulated, are long forgotten figures in the history of this political experiment.
Sources:
War for America: The Fight for Independence, 1775 – 1783, Jeremy Black, Alan Sutton Publishing, Ltd., Gloucestershire, United Kingdom, 1991
John Adams: A Life, John Ferling, Henry Holt & Company, New York, 1992
John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty, C. Bradley Thompson, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, 1998
John Adams, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 2001
Battles of the Revolutionary War, 1775 – 1783, W. J. Wood, Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1990
The Battle for Bunker Hill, Richard M. Ketchum, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York, 1962
Decisive Day: The Battle for Bunker Hill, Richard M. Ketchum, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York, 1974
The Adamses, 1735 – 1918: America’s First Dynasty, Richard Brookhiser, The Free Press, New York, New York, 2002
Heroes Among Us, Jim Ryun & Sons, Destiny Image, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 2002
John Quincy Adams and The Foundations of American Foreign Policy, Samuel Flagg Bemis, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York, 1949
Patriots: The Men Who Started The American Revolution, A.J. Langguth, Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 1988
American National Biography, John A. Garraty and Mark Carnes, Oxford University Press, American Council of Learned Societies, 1999
Dictionary of American Biography, Dumas Malone, editor, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York, 1936
The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, Jack P. Greene and J.R. Dole, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991
The American Revolution, 1775 – 1783: An Encyclopedia, Garland Publications, New York, New York, 1993
Tour of the Adams Homestead in Quincy, Massachusetts, given by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, October 17, 2007
Tour of Bunker Hill, Charlestown, Massachusetts, given by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, October 18, 2007
Dr. Joseph Warren, a leading physician and a general in the Massachusetts revolutionary militia, was, effectively, the commanding officer of the army unit that fought one of America’s greatest battles against British troops. The militia, with an outstanding showing in earlier skirmishes against the Redcoats, at Lexington and Concord, in April 1775, would fight across Boston Harbor, in Charlestown, on ground that would later become a consecrated part of the American Revolution, Bunker Hill.
On that fateful June day, Dr. Warren did something that no American general has ever done since: He placed his second in command, Israel Putnam, in charge of the army, telling him that he could better serve the cause if he placed himself directly in harm’s way. Dr. Warren then took his place with the troops in the front line.
It’s difficult to say how much of an inspiration Dr. Warren was to his fellow soldiers. Certainly, they weren’t expecting a man of his social prominence to stand among them to battle the enemy.
Some reports say that the men cheered once they recognized that Dr. Warren would join them – as one of them – a lowly solider fighting, and likely dieing, for the cause. Others say the men had no reaction to Warren’s presence.
Warren had been a very public and a leading figure in the Patriot cause, heading up the Massachusetts Provincial Congress as well as a principal figure, with John Hancock and Samuel Adams, in protesting various Parliamentary acts considered by the colonists, especially those in Boston, to be repressive.
Warren was one of Boston’s leading men and top physicians. As would have been appropriate for a man of his stature during his time, he married very well. 18-year-old Elizabeth Hooten, considered one of the most beautiful ladies of her day, from one of Boston’s wealthiest families, was his wife, and she bore him four children until her untimely death, at 26, in 1772.
John and Abigail Adams admired Dr. Warren because he was one of the most innovative physicians, inoculating their children, as well as other patients, against smallpox, a leading killer in the 18th century. He was also one of the Adams’ dearest friends.
It’s thought that Warren had a premonition about his fate at Bunker Hill. The night before the battle, he dined with Betsy Palmer, whose husband had fought at Lexington. At the end of the meal, Dr. Warren suggested that they have one last drink before leaving one another – for good.
Just prior to the battle, Dr. Warren, who had just been commissioned a major general, called on Israel Putnam, the general commanding the militia assembled to fight on Bunker Hill. Putnam told Warren that he was prepared to accept his orders.
Warren invoked a technicality. While he was aware that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress had elected him a major general, he was also equally aware that he hadn’t actually received the commission by the time he arrived at Bunker Hill. So rather than take up his new position, which Putnam expected him to do, Warren, instead, inquired where the brunt of the fighting would occur. Putnam said it would be by their fortifications on Breed’s Hill, just below Bunker Hill. Warren dismissed himself and headed off to the front lines, where he met the militia’s battlefield commander, Colonel William Prescott.
One of America’s finest officers, so much so that the British offered him a commission in the regular army after the French-Indian War, Prescott attempted to dissuade Warren from his actions. But Warren wouldn’t hear of it. He insisted he was there to do his job as he saw fit – fight the British as a volunteer private – and took his place among the farmers, small merchants and tradesman making up the rebel army.
By doing so, he was violating 18th century social protocol. Men like Warren, educated and wealthy, were expected to command people making up the rebel army – not fight directly alongside of them as a peer.
Twenty-two hundred British troops squared off against 1,500 American volunteers at Breeds Hill on June 17, 1775. The Redcoats marched up the hill three times before finally overwhelming the colonial army. The cost to Great Britain: 268 killed. 828 wounded. The colonists suffered 115 dead and 305 wounded.
18th century battlefield tactics were, by today’s standards, suicidal. Opposing sides lined up out in the open without taking cover. Each side could see the enemy it faced.
Lined up side by side, British troops marched up Breed’s Hill toward the American lines. The British were likely under the impression that just by marching up the hill, with their swords and muskets gleaming, the Americans would run away.
Instead, Dr. Warren and his fellow soldiers successfully stopped two British advances. Twice the American forces fired their muskets at near point-blank range, around 150 feet, inflicting numerous casualties. As a result, British lines collapsed twice as their dead and wounded fell to the ground.
“’As we approached, an incessant stream of fire poured from the rebel line; it seemed a continued sheet of fire for near thirty minutes,’” reported one British officer.
With the battle’s outcome in the balance, Britain’s leading general on the battlefield that day, William Howe, refused to be defeated. He regrouped his forces and sent them right back up the hill for a third march. He likely knew that the Americans couldn’t win a battle of attrition.
Just prior to encountering the enemy for a third time, Colonel Prescott suggested to Dr. Warren that he remove himself from the ranks, so his life would be spared.
Dr. Warren refused to leave.
By this time every American soldier was aware that they were short on ammunition, gunpowder and men.
The Americans, as they had done the two previous times, waited until the British troops were near them, around 150 feet. They fired their muskets but this volley, unlike previous ones, was no where near as effective because of the lack of ammunition as well as the number of American wounded and dead.
As the enemy continued its approach, many Americans fled either because they were out of ammunition or scared. Warren and a number of others stayed. Out of ammunition, the doctor turned his musket into a club and started swinging it at the British. Soon he drew his sword, holding his ground, determined to fight. A British officer drew his weapon and fired at Warren, striking him in the head. Warren immediately placed a hand over the wound, turned his torso slightly and fell to the ground dead. Dr. Warren was 34.
The British had secured victory. Had General Howe possessed a killer instinct, British troops would have pursued the fleeing Americans. Instead, His Majesty’s soldiers tended to their wounded and dead and took prisoners.
Dr. Warren’s death was significant, not only for the Americans but also for the British. His name was synonymous with the rebel cause. One British general, John Burgoyne, went to Charlestown to identify the body. Warren’s death, reported one historian, seemed to leave the rebels “virtually headless.”
One British officer, in charge of the burial detail from the battle, recognized Dr. Warren and boasted that he “’stuffed the scoundrel with another Rebel into one hole and there he and his seditious principles may remain.’”
Dr. Warren’s remains were later dug up and positively identified for the Americans by Paul Revere. He had inserted two false teeth into Warren. When he came across Warren’s body, he opened his mouth, found the false teeth and confirmed Warren’s death.
The battle, one of the most significant ones during the Revolution, showed that America’s rag-tag, volunteer army could fight against a seasoned, disciplined, professional and highly trained force. It inflicted casualties on nearly 50 percent of the enemy’s troops and held its ground until it ran out of ammunition – or was wounded and killed.
The British were shocked by their losses, with one officer writing, “’Damn the Rebels – that they would not flinch.’” Britain’s generals in America realized they were in for a long, hard fight and success wasn’t guaranteed.
It’ll be long debated why some men, who aren’t expected to make such a sacrifice, do so. Maybe Dr. Warren was still mourning the loss of his young wife; perhaps he felt overburdened about having to care for his children, even though he likely had assistance; perhaps he was the greatest Patriot to have ever lived, believing that he should fight, even die, for a cause to which he had contributed so many words, inspired so many and which he also led. Or, possibly, Dr. Warren thought it was abhorrent to let others fight for principles he helped create.
It’s hard to say what Dr. Warren was thinking just prior to his death. He didn’t leave much behind in terms of correspondence. John Adams thought Dr. Warren was a hero.
Sixth months prior to Bunker Hill, Dr. Warren believed that the American colonies and British Crown could resolve their differences. When he died, the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, was formulating a course of action against the British, including appointing a commanding general (George Washington) of the army units assembled in Massachusetts, just outside of Charlestown. At the time of Warren’s death, the idea of seeking independence from the Crown was just beginning to be debated in Philadelphia. It’s quite possible that Dr. Warren died thinking he was a loyal British subject, seeking to redress the rights he thought had been trampled upon by Parliament and the king.
Today, Dr. Warren’s portrait graces the living room mantle of the house that John and Abigail Adams occupied for 30 years in Quincy, just south of Boston. It’s one of the first pictures visitors notice as they enter the living room. Not even George Washington, a man the second president greatly admired, occupies such a place of honor. His portrait hangs in the hallway.
Unlike so many historical houses, everything in this one is original, from the furniture to the china and crystal collections to the living room wallpaper. Abigail bought the house, called Peacefield, in 1788. The house was occupied by a member of the Adams family for nearly 140 years.
(As you walk through the house, you’re exposed to replicas of the 3,800 books that were owned by John Adams. His original books are under lock and key at the Boston Public Library. Adams grandson built a library behind the house in the 1870s and it stores 14,000 volumes owned by various members of the Adams family. You can’t help but to feel the intellectual inferior of men long since passed.)
John Adams was not the greatest president of the United States. In fact, compared to the one he served as vice president, George Washington, he was a complete failure. One-term presidents don’t last long in America’s collective memory bank. What makes Adams great, compared to other one-term presidents, as well as a few two-term presidents, is his work during and after the Revolution and the fact that he was one of the country’s best students of politics.
He was the leading constitutional scholar of his day, writing books and articles that explained and defended them. Adams knowledge of constitutions and politics was so profound he was asked to write the constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (He was also one of the Commonwealth’s favorite sons in the 1770s.) It’s the world’s oldest, written constitution and political scholars consider it a forerunner to the U.S. Constitution.
(Many of the original 13 states also wrote and passed constitutions in the 1770s, ahead of Massachusetts. For example, the Virginia legislature ratified its first constitution in 1776. But many of the constitutions that were passed during those early days of the Republic, including that of Virginia, were later re-written. The constitution that John Adams wrote for Massachusetts remains in effect today, making it the world’s oldest, written constitution.)
John Adams’ resume is long: he was an outstanding lawyer; he represented Massachusetts in both Continental Congresses; and he was one of the first voices to push for independence; and he wrote the oldest constitution in effect today. It was his speech, at the Second Continental Congress, that persuaded the colonists to seek liberation from London.
In addition, Adams represented the United States in Europe, securing diplomatic ties and loans for the young country. He was also the first U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, establishing a working relationship with the king his country had fought so hard against, George III.
But the single greatest thing John Adams did, which doesn’t receive the prominence it deserves, is show how a defeated political leader leaves office. He didn’t turn to his allies and friends to organize an army to fight his opponents so he could hold the office he had lost in an election. Instead, like those who would succeed him, he headed home to become a private citizen – peacefully.
By this very act, Adams showed that the democracy he and his fellow founders worked to create functioned. President Adams demonstrated that America could change presidents and political parties without gunfire. By acting in such a manner, he becomes one of the most remarkable political figures to have ever graced the United States. Every time a defeated president peacefully observes their successor’s inauguration, the American Revolution and the Constitution are kept alive and John Adams is saluted.
John Adams also showed retired and defeated political leaders that there’s life after the office. He worked on his farm, doted on his family, wrote down his thoughts and re-established his friendship with Thomas Jefferson. None of this came easy. Adams left office a bitter man and it took a number of years for him to recover from the pain he felt from having been defeated in his reelection attempt.
The correspondence between Adams and Jefferson should be read by every American. Adams told Jefferson, in one letter, that he’d be long forgotten while Jefferson would be long remembered. How right he was.
Unlike the other leading Founding Fathers, John Adams was the only one to produce a son who would enter national politics. It must have come as quite the shock to Jefferson to see the son of his one-time foe become the president.
John Quincy was as much of a student of politics and law as his father, becoming one of America’s finest diplomats. In fact, many of the principles he laid down as secretary of state formed the foundations of U.S. foreign policy for nearly 100 years. Some of them continue to this very day. And yet, today, like his father, John Quincy is a figure lost in American history.
John Quincy’s presidency was hardly distinguishable. He pressed for roads and canals that would connect distant parts of the young nation. Like his father, he would only serve as president for one term. He had a far more remarkable career in the House of Representatives, where he served after having been the nation’s sixth president. To date, he is the only president to later serve in Congress.
Ask the average American to name the first four or five presidents and they’ll likely say, “George Washington … Thomas Jefferson … “ and that’s where they stop. Even James Madison and James Monroe, the fourth and fifth presidents, respectively, aren’t likely recalled; and they each served eight years as president. More often than not, John Adams is overlooked.
It’s historical irony that Dr. Warren, John Adams and John Quincy, who contributed so much, whose names were so widely known, and were so influential, become such lost figures in the American story. This appears to be the tie that binds them but there are a few others, too.
They did the unexpected. John Adams could have sat out the Revolution and no one was pressing him to make a speech on behalf of independence at the Second Continental Congress. Adams could also have acted very differently after losing the presidential election in 1800 to Thomas Jefferson. Instead, he left office peacefully and became a private citizen. Dr. Warren didn’t have to fight at Bunker Hill. He could have remained far to the rear, observing the battle from relative safety. Instead, he went to the front lines, making the ultimate sacrifice. John Quincy, a highly educated man, pressed for a national university and helped to found the Smithsonian, thinking that all Americans should possess as much knowledge as they could acquire. He was also a vociferous advocate to end slavery. And while he could have stayed home after losing the presidency – which would have been accepted and expected by his peers – he, instead, served his congressional district in the House of Representatives, something he didn’t consider beneath the stature of a former president.
Each of these men did what that they thought was correct – the immediate consequences be damned. Expedient, cautious and retiring are words that could never describe them. Brave, intelligent, idealistic, and determined are just a few of the words that come to mind, instead. It’s a tragedy these remarkable men, some of the finest sons America ever produced, who should be emulated, are long forgotten figures in the history of this political experiment.
Sources:
War for America: The Fight for Independence, 1775 – 1783, Jeremy Black, Alan Sutton Publishing, Ltd., Gloucestershire, United Kingdom, 1991
John Adams: A Life, John Ferling, Henry Holt & Company, New York, 1992
John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty, C. Bradley Thompson, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, 1998
John Adams, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 2001
Battles of the Revolutionary War, 1775 – 1783, W. J. Wood, Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1990
The Battle for Bunker Hill, Richard M. Ketchum, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York, 1962
Decisive Day: The Battle for Bunker Hill, Richard M. Ketchum, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York, 1974
The Adamses, 1735 – 1918: America’s First Dynasty, Richard Brookhiser, The Free Press, New York, New York, 2002
Heroes Among Us, Jim Ryun & Sons, Destiny Image, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 2002
John Quincy Adams and The Foundations of American Foreign Policy, Samuel Flagg Bemis, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York, 1949
Patriots: The Men Who Started The American Revolution, A.J. Langguth, Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 1988
American National Biography, John A. Garraty and Mark Carnes, Oxford University Press, American Council of Learned Societies, 1999
Dictionary of American Biography, Dumas Malone, editor, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York, 1936
The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, Jack P. Greene and J.R. Dole, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991
The American Revolution, 1775 – 1783: An Encyclopedia, Garland Publications, New York, New York, 1993
Tour of the Adams Homestead in Quincy, Massachusetts, given by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, October 17, 2007
Tour of Bunker Hill, Charlestown, Massachusetts, given by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, October 18, 2007
Monday, August 06, 2007
Softly killing the faith: Christian conduct and communication
Every Sunday, I wake up conflicted.
Part of me wants to go to church to listen to a sermon, which, with any luck, will enhance my faith and edify my understanding of antiquity, God, the ancient Hebrews and Egyptians, Jesus Christ and his apostles.
Another part of me just wants to stay home, eat breakfast, drink too much coffee and read the newspapers.
More often than not, my wife and I pack up the kids and go to church. We do so because we believe in God and think church is the best place for our children to learn morals and ethics. We also go because sometimes we’re scheduled to teach Sunday school and, often, because we enjoy the sermons.
I find tranquility at church. I’m not sure how it comes about. Maybe it’s God’s way of touching me. I don’t know. All I know is that serenity is a result of my attending church. It doesn’t last long – nothing does with two young boys in tow – but I feel better having attended church.
But there are some very strong reasons I don’t want to go. Most of them have to do with the constant bickering that’s been one of Christianity’s hallmarks over the last 500 years and continues to this very day.
Our congregation fought over and lost members because of Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire. The fight’s over. The local parish survived, and it found a new rector, a good man, to replace the one who resigned in protest. But after having experienced that fight, and seeing how vicious people will battle one another in the name of God, my faith has emerged challenged, maybe even dampened, and I cannot help but wonder about the church’s congregation. Will it battle one another again?
Protestants battle Protestants and Catholics battle Catholics. And then there all those fights between the faiths. It makes me wonder, is this what God intended? I have my doubts.
Christianity is a wonderful religion, but its faithful continually show their propensity to enter into vicious, internecine, theological battles. There’s enough drama in my life. The last place I need to experience it is at church.
And, sometimes, that’s what keeps me home on Sunday. I’m more willing to subject myself to catatonic shock from reading The New York Times editorial page than I’m prepared to listen to the tacit politics of the church. It’s not God I distrust. It’s the people who tell me I’m suppose to believe in God. They never measure up.
I’ve met all kinds of Christians. Some give every appearance of being peaceful, reverent and pure. Some of them easily become judgmental, sanctimonious, spiteful and malicious when looking upon other Christians who don’t see God and Jesus the way they do.
I’ve had Christians tell me Jews will not be allowed into Heaven because they fail to accept Jesus Christ as God’s son.
Another man told me, “If you’re going to have religion, you might as well go Catholic.” I always told him he missed his calling. He’d have been perfectly suited for the Spanish Inquisition.
And, most bothersome of all, a member of the local clergy told me that the local clergy don’t talk to one another. “They’re very competitive.”
If the clerics refuse to talk to one another, you have to wonder what kind of example they’re setting for their congregations. For the record, I’m happy to report, our new rector is attempting to reach out and speak with the other local clerics. I wish him the best of success.
This tendency by Christians to battle one another appeared yet again, a few weeks ago, when the Vatican issued a statement saying that other Christian faiths, i.e. those that aren’t in the Roman Catholic fold, have a tenuous connection to God, and therefore to eternal salvation, because, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, they cannot trace the roots of their faith to Jesus Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church, the world’s largest church, with more than a billion faithful, believes it is the one, true Christian church because its founders, the apostles Peter and Paul, walked with Christ.
That line of thinking worked for about 1500 years until Martin Luther came along, posting his 95 grievances against the Roman Church. Among other things, he challenged the Pope’s supremacy over all Christian theological thinking. It’s bound to scripture – not the Pope’s interpretation, he said.
Had cooler heads prevailed in 1541, this divide between the Roman Church and the Protestant faith might have been healed. Protestants and Catholics met in Regensburg, Germany and came close to resolving their differences.
Had the Roman Church conceded four points to the Protestants during this conference, writes the Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter in his book The Concise History of the Catholic Church, there’s a chance, maybe a slim one, that Christianity would be united today.
Protestants insisted that the clergy be allowed to marry; that communion be allowed to be given in both forms, meaning with and without the wine; that there be freedom to “teach the Real Presence (of Jesus Christ) without defining its manners as transubstantiation;” and freedom from papal authority “as distinct from papal primacy.”
Of course, none of these points on face value could be accepted by the Roman Church. They consider their clergy to be alter Christus, another Christ, which prohibits them from marrying. They believe that communion can be fulfilled with just bread; and, as result, during communion, one physically connects with Jesus and, therefore, God, i.e., transubstantiation.
As for papal primacy, part of the rejection by the Roman Church on this point was political. They didn’t want to give up the power.
Consider, for a moment, the many things the two sides agreed upon that outnumbered their disagreements. They agreed in one God, the Holy Trinity, Jesus’ divinity, the virgin birth, the importance of communion and baptism, and the 10 Commandments.
But because the Roman Church refused to yield on those four points, or the two sides failed to find middle ground on those points, the Lutheran faith, which would become the Protestant faith, gained legitimacy; it was legally recognized in Germany in 1555.
Christianity has never been the same since. And it will battle itself for time eternal.
god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is the title of Christopher Hitchens latest book. Yes, the title spells God with a small g – heresy in most religious circles. It’s Hitchens’ attempt to shock us into buying his book.
In his book, Hitchens says he’s an atheist and pans religion. As he sees it, religion is the foundation for dangerous thinking. Indeed, he says, people are intellectually arrested because of religion.
I think Hitchens is wrong. But that’s because I prefer to live in a world with God and attend a church that I know is highly fallible. God and religion give me hope and strength that I’ll meet my challenges and that there are better tomorrows ahead. (Please do not ask me what theology this comes from. I haven’t the slightest idea.)
But grant Hitchens this: He didn’t come to these conclusions entirely through his own intellectual study and experiences. Contributing greatly to his thoughts is the behavior of the faithful. He’s been to Belfast, Beirut and Sarajevo, cities where the religious have killed others – in the name of God. If you’re devout and believe your faith has a lock on God, then you’re contributing to books like his, and you’ve worked against God and your faith.
The Christian Bible says that everyone falls short of God, meaning that none of us, no matter who we are or how hard we try, ever measure up to God’s exacting standards. We’re all sinners. Whether we know it or not.
I’m grateful He’s a forgiving God. I just might make it into Heaven. But, then again, maybe not.
Christianity needs a dose of humility. In other words, all Christians, regardless of the branch of the faith they’ve taken up, would better serve the faith if they considered the possible results of their actions and their words not only to one another but also to others who are Jewish, Muslim or simply believe in God differently than they do.
No church, regardless of its affiliation, has a monopoly on God’s grace and eternal salvation. God is not a Christian, not a Jew, not a Muslim nor does He follow any faith I’ve failed to mention here. God is great. Because He’s great, He can be found in any faith.
I’m not about to condemn anyone for their beliefs. The few Jews I’ve met are more devout than the many Christians I’ve met. I’m not about to condemn the Muslims for their beliefs either. I’m not about to become a Mormon, but I’ll say this on their behalf: The ones I’ve met have been most gracious.
I’m a Protestant. Had it not been for my maternal great grandfather, an Irish immigrant, getting into a knock-down drag-out fight with his priest, I might be Catholic. The two fought tooth and nail, my grandmother reports, and finally, my great-grandfather told the priest he could read the Bible, too, and the rest is history. He joined the Baptist church.
My mother and my father, a Methodist, decided that Presbyterianism was the way to bring up their children. Whether or not this was a true theological middle ground, I have no idea.
I don’t see eye to eye with Catholicism, but I’m in more agreement with the Catholics than some of their more devout members might believe. In fact, truth be told, I enjoy the Catholic Mass, and I’m grateful that my wife and I can experience some of the same Mass in the Episcopal church we joined.
When I think about all these theological debates, I keep coming back to this thought: The answers to these many debates won’t be known until we’re dead. And, then again, maybe not. God’s plans for us once we arrive in the after life might not include sharing all His secrets.
So what to do between now and the time we meet our Maker? I suggest all Christians consider our common humanity, even of those with whom we disagree. All of us want to be accepted, admired, appreciated, loved, liked and respected not only by our friends and family but also by those we’ve never met or with whom we disagree. Christianity will be better served if we keep that in mind. We also need to remember to be diplomatic and understanding when we’re communicating about our faith to others. If we conduct ourselves in this manner, the pews stand a stronger chance of filling up and we just might live in a better world.
Regardless of your faith, may God bless you and hold you, now and forever.
Sources:
1. My experiences with religion
2. Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions, Rev. John Trigilio, Jr., Ph.D., and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, Ph.D., Sourcebooks Inc., 2007
3. The Oxford History of Christian Worship, edited by Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, Oxford University Press, 2006
4. A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, Doubleday & Company, 1977
5. Protestantism in America, Randall Balmer and Lauren F. Winner, Columbia University Press, 2002
6. Protestantism: Its churches, cultures, rituals and doctrines, yesterday and today, Martin E. Marty, Holt Reinhart and Winston, 1972
7. The Reformation: A History, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Viking, 2003
8. god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens, Twelve, Hachette Book Group USA, 2007
Part of me wants to go to church to listen to a sermon, which, with any luck, will enhance my faith and edify my understanding of antiquity, God, the ancient Hebrews and Egyptians, Jesus Christ and his apostles.
Another part of me just wants to stay home, eat breakfast, drink too much coffee and read the newspapers.
More often than not, my wife and I pack up the kids and go to church. We do so because we believe in God and think church is the best place for our children to learn morals and ethics. We also go because sometimes we’re scheduled to teach Sunday school and, often, because we enjoy the sermons.
I find tranquility at church. I’m not sure how it comes about. Maybe it’s God’s way of touching me. I don’t know. All I know is that serenity is a result of my attending church. It doesn’t last long – nothing does with two young boys in tow – but I feel better having attended church.
But there are some very strong reasons I don’t want to go. Most of them have to do with the constant bickering that’s been one of Christianity’s hallmarks over the last 500 years and continues to this very day.
Our congregation fought over and lost members because of Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire. The fight’s over. The local parish survived, and it found a new rector, a good man, to replace the one who resigned in protest. But after having experienced that fight, and seeing how vicious people will battle one another in the name of God, my faith has emerged challenged, maybe even dampened, and I cannot help but wonder about the church’s congregation. Will it battle one another again?
Protestants battle Protestants and Catholics battle Catholics. And then there all those fights between the faiths. It makes me wonder, is this what God intended? I have my doubts.
Christianity is a wonderful religion, but its faithful continually show their propensity to enter into vicious, internecine, theological battles. There’s enough drama in my life. The last place I need to experience it is at church.
And, sometimes, that’s what keeps me home on Sunday. I’m more willing to subject myself to catatonic shock from reading The New York Times editorial page than I’m prepared to listen to the tacit politics of the church. It’s not God I distrust. It’s the people who tell me I’m suppose to believe in God. They never measure up.
I’ve met all kinds of Christians. Some give every appearance of being peaceful, reverent and pure. Some of them easily become judgmental, sanctimonious, spiteful and malicious when looking upon other Christians who don’t see God and Jesus the way they do.
I’ve had Christians tell me Jews will not be allowed into Heaven because they fail to accept Jesus Christ as God’s son.
Another man told me, “If you’re going to have religion, you might as well go Catholic.” I always told him he missed his calling. He’d have been perfectly suited for the Spanish Inquisition.
And, most bothersome of all, a member of the local clergy told me that the local clergy don’t talk to one another. “They’re very competitive.”
If the clerics refuse to talk to one another, you have to wonder what kind of example they’re setting for their congregations. For the record, I’m happy to report, our new rector is attempting to reach out and speak with the other local clerics. I wish him the best of success.
This tendency by Christians to battle one another appeared yet again, a few weeks ago, when the Vatican issued a statement saying that other Christian faiths, i.e. those that aren’t in the Roman Catholic fold, have a tenuous connection to God, and therefore to eternal salvation, because, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, they cannot trace the roots of their faith to Jesus Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church, the world’s largest church, with more than a billion faithful, believes it is the one, true Christian church because its founders, the apostles Peter and Paul, walked with Christ.
That line of thinking worked for about 1500 years until Martin Luther came along, posting his 95 grievances against the Roman Church. Among other things, he challenged the Pope’s supremacy over all Christian theological thinking. It’s bound to scripture – not the Pope’s interpretation, he said.
Had cooler heads prevailed in 1541, this divide between the Roman Church and the Protestant faith might have been healed. Protestants and Catholics met in Regensburg, Germany and came close to resolving their differences.
Had the Roman Church conceded four points to the Protestants during this conference, writes the Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter in his book The Concise History of the Catholic Church, there’s a chance, maybe a slim one, that Christianity would be united today.
Protestants insisted that the clergy be allowed to marry; that communion be allowed to be given in both forms, meaning with and without the wine; that there be freedom to “teach the Real Presence (of Jesus Christ) without defining its manners as transubstantiation;” and freedom from papal authority “as distinct from papal primacy.”
Of course, none of these points on face value could be accepted by the Roman Church. They consider their clergy to be alter Christus, another Christ, which prohibits them from marrying. They believe that communion can be fulfilled with just bread; and, as result, during communion, one physically connects with Jesus and, therefore, God, i.e., transubstantiation.
As for papal primacy, part of the rejection by the Roman Church on this point was political. They didn’t want to give up the power.
Consider, for a moment, the many things the two sides agreed upon that outnumbered their disagreements. They agreed in one God, the Holy Trinity, Jesus’ divinity, the virgin birth, the importance of communion and baptism, and the 10 Commandments.
But because the Roman Church refused to yield on those four points, or the two sides failed to find middle ground on those points, the Lutheran faith, which would become the Protestant faith, gained legitimacy; it was legally recognized in Germany in 1555.
Christianity has never been the same since. And it will battle itself for time eternal.
god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is the title of Christopher Hitchens latest book. Yes, the title spells God with a small g – heresy in most religious circles. It’s Hitchens’ attempt to shock us into buying his book.
In his book, Hitchens says he’s an atheist and pans religion. As he sees it, religion is the foundation for dangerous thinking. Indeed, he says, people are intellectually arrested because of religion.
I think Hitchens is wrong. But that’s because I prefer to live in a world with God and attend a church that I know is highly fallible. God and religion give me hope and strength that I’ll meet my challenges and that there are better tomorrows ahead. (Please do not ask me what theology this comes from. I haven’t the slightest idea.)
But grant Hitchens this: He didn’t come to these conclusions entirely through his own intellectual study and experiences. Contributing greatly to his thoughts is the behavior of the faithful. He’s been to Belfast, Beirut and Sarajevo, cities where the religious have killed others – in the name of God. If you’re devout and believe your faith has a lock on God, then you’re contributing to books like his, and you’ve worked against God and your faith.
The Christian Bible says that everyone falls short of God, meaning that none of us, no matter who we are or how hard we try, ever measure up to God’s exacting standards. We’re all sinners. Whether we know it or not.
I’m grateful He’s a forgiving God. I just might make it into Heaven. But, then again, maybe not.
Christianity needs a dose of humility. In other words, all Christians, regardless of the branch of the faith they’ve taken up, would better serve the faith if they considered the possible results of their actions and their words not only to one another but also to others who are Jewish, Muslim or simply believe in God differently than they do.
No church, regardless of its affiliation, has a monopoly on God’s grace and eternal salvation. God is not a Christian, not a Jew, not a Muslim nor does He follow any faith I’ve failed to mention here. God is great. Because He’s great, He can be found in any faith.
I’m not about to condemn anyone for their beliefs. The few Jews I’ve met are more devout than the many Christians I’ve met. I’m not about to condemn the Muslims for their beliefs either. I’m not about to become a Mormon, but I’ll say this on their behalf: The ones I’ve met have been most gracious.
I’m a Protestant. Had it not been for my maternal great grandfather, an Irish immigrant, getting into a knock-down drag-out fight with his priest, I might be Catholic. The two fought tooth and nail, my grandmother reports, and finally, my great-grandfather told the priest he could read the Bible, too, and the rest is history. He joined the Baptist church.
My mother and my father, a Methodist, decided that Presbyterianism was the way to bring up their children. Whether or not this was a true theological middle ground, I have no idea.
I don’t see eye to eye with Catholicism, but I’m in more agreement with the Catholics than some of their more devout members might believe. In fact, truth be told, I enjoy the Catholic Mass, and I’m grateful that my wife and I can experience some of the same Mass in the Episcopal church we joined.
When I think about all these theological debates, I keep coming back to this thought: The answers to these many debates won’t be known until we’re dead. And, then again, maybe not. God’s plans for us once we arrive in the after life might not include sharing all His secrets.
So what to do between now and the time we meet our Maker? I suggest all Christians consider our common humanity, even of those with whom we disagree. All of us want to be accepted, admired, appreciated, loved, liked and respected not only by our friends and family but also by those we’ve never met or with whom we disagree. Christianity will be better served if we keep that in mind. We also need to remember to be diplomatic and understanding when we’re communicating about our faith to others. If we conduct ourselves in this manner, the pews stand a stronger chance of filling up and we just might live in a better world.
Regardless of your faith, may God bless you and hold you, now and forever.
Sources:
1. My experiences with religion
2. Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions, Rev. John Trigilio, Jr., Ph.D., and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, Ph.D., Sourcebooks Inc., 2007
3. The Oxford History of Christian Worship, edited by Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, Oxford University Press, 2006
4. A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, Doubleday & Company, 1977
5. Protestantism in America, Randall Balmer and Lauren F. Winner, Columbia University Press, 2002
6. Protestantism: Its churches, cultures, rituals and doctrines, yesterday and today, Martin E. Marty, Holt Reinhart and Winston, 1972
7. The Reformation: A History, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Viking, 2003
8. god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens, Twelve, Hachette Book Group USA, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)