DICK & LIZ: FATHER-DAUGHTER POLITICAL DUO

 The historian Joseph Ellis once remarked about a major difference between the British officer corps and the American officer corps during the American Revolutionary War. Whereas, British officers paid for their commissions and often had rich and influential patrons, American officers were appointed on merit. This situation often led American officers to quarrel and disagree about who is the best person for promotion.

Disputes in the American army bled over into our politics. Since we do not have a reigning  royal family like Britain in which person are naturally royal by birth or through marriage, American politicians prove their worth through by being elected to office. And, quite often, politics becomes the family’s business throughout several generations. Successful politics by numerous family members are called political dynasties. A dynasty can exist on the local, state, or national levels and can have huge impacts on the levels family members served. Some prominent families who have become political dynasties in the past and present are:

·       Adams (Massachusetts)- John (president), John Quincy (president), Francis (diplomat), Henry (public intellectual)

·       Harrison (Virginia/Indiana)- Benjamin (signer of the Declaration of Independence), William Henry (president), Benjamin (president)

·       Lincoln (Illinois)- Abraham (president), Robert (secretary of war)

·       Roosevelt (New York)- Theodore (president), Theodore, Jr. (general), Franklin (president)

·       Lodge (Massachusetts)- Henry Cabot I (senator), Henry Cabot ll (senator), George Cabot (ambassador)

·       Taft (Ohio)- Alonso (attorney general), William Howard (president & chief justice), Robert (senator)

·       Kennedy (Massachusetts/New York/Marylsnd)- John (president), Robert (senator), Ted (senator), Patrick (congressman), Kathleen (state lieutenant governor), Joseph (congressman), Robert, Jr. (environmental activist), Mary (civil rights activist)

·       Edmondson (Oklahoma)- J. Howard (senator), Ed (congressman), James (state chief justice), Drew (state attorney general)

·       Bush (Connecticut/Texas/Florida)- Prescott (senator), George H.W. (president), George W. (president), John E. (governor), George P. (state land commissioner)

[Please note: 1) four of the above families have had two family members each elected president, 2) only the highest position for each person is listed, and 3) the Clintons do not make the list because they are confined to one generation]

And now we come to the Cheneys- Richard (Dick) and Elizabeth (Liz)- the only major political dynasty to date  in US history comprising a father and his daughter. The Cheney dynasty also grew out of the state of Wyoming, one of the most sparsely populated states in our federal  union,

Dick Cheney was born in Lincoln Nebraska in 1941 but moved to Casper Wyoming in his childhood due to his father’s job as a soil conservation agent for the US Department of Agriculture. He blossomed in high school where he was elected senior class president, played football, and had descent grades, But Cheney was not the star of his class- that distinction belonged to Lynne Vincent, Cheney’s girlfriend and future wife.

Cheney began his college career at Yale, but he left after a year due to personal issues. Nevertheless, before he left Yale he attended a course taught by Professor H. Bradford Westerfield, a foreign policy hawk who believed communism could be stopped by a strong and aggressive United States. Another influence on Cheney’s thinking was Winston Churchill in whose writings Cheney interpreted that global leadership required a nation to recognize evil and confront it.

Returning to Casper, Cheney recouped his academics at the local community college before enrolling at the University of Wyoming to study for and receive his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in political science. He then entered the University of Wisconsin-Madison to study for his doctorate,

Cheney and Lynne married in 1964. Daughters Elizabeth and Mary were born in 1966 and 1969, respectively. During the Vietnam War era, he received numerous educational and marriage deferments. When asked by a journalist about these deferments, Cheney’s reply was brief and to the point, >I had other priorities in the ‘60s than military service.” Yet his taste for academic life was souring and he decided not to pursue his PhD. At the same time Lynne received her doctorate in British literature.

Cheney got his experience in politics working with the state senate while a student at the University of Wyoming. His work there led him to become a Republican even while his parents were committed Democrats. At Wisconsin-Madison, he worked in the office of the state governor, Then the Cheneys moved to Washington DC in 1968 when he accepted a congressional fellowship from the American Political Science Association.

In Washington Cheney befriended Donald Rumsfeld, a congressman from Illinois, When President Nixon asked Rumsfeld to head the Office of Economic Opportunity Cheney went along as his assistant and followed Rumsfeld to the Cost of Living Council, again as his assistant. And when Rumsfeld was named White House Chief of Staff by President Ford, Cheney once again became Rumsfeld’s assistant.

In 1975, Cheney became the youngest ever presidential Chief of Staff when President Ford assigned Rumsfeld elsewhere. Cheney was valued as a loyal and competent manager, a trusted deputy and operations man who was efficient in time and resources to get the job done. One journalist even labeled Cheney as an “universal adaptor:” One colleague observed, “You plug him in and he works anywhere. He just has a good way of fitting in and working his environment,”

Beneath his effective management style was a no-nonsense view of the world. On the domestic front, Cheney believed in and politically fought for executive privilege and prerequisites. In foreign policy, Cheney was a hawk as he learned from his old Yale professor and Churchill. While not identifying himself as a neoconservative, Cheney, as well as Rumsfeld, would be greatly influenced by neoconservative thought particularly as it pertained to the United States spreading demoocratic principles in the Middle East. This world view would haunt the United States in the first two decades of the twenty-first century.

When President Ford lost his election bid in 1976, Cheney returned to Wyoming and campaigned for the lone state congressional seat and won his bid in 1978. As a Member of Congress, he returned to his primary mode of operations. Rather than introducing legislation and making a name for himself, Cheney worked behind the scenes as a loyal “number two” operator.

From 1979- 1989 Cheney represented Wyoming in the House of Representatives. He could have continued many more years, perhaps even to be selected by the House members as the Speaker and change the course of American history. But the election of President Bush in 1988 called for new leadership at the Department of Defense. The nomination of former Senator John Tower, President Bush’s first choice as Secretary of Defense, was rejected by the Senate. So the President turned to Cheney who gave up his congressional seat to become the new cabinet secretary.

As Secretary of Defense, Cheney focused on external and strategic matters, while his own “number two” deputy secretary handled the internal operations of the Pentagon. It may been a New World Order for the rest of the world, but for the United States faced a major unilateral conflict in Panama and a global coalition war in the Middle East. The President and the generals took the media credit for the victories while Cheney stayed in his preferred behind-the-scenes role.

Democrats came back into executive power in 1993 so Cheney went on to become CEO of Hallliburton, a multinational corporation specializing in hydraulic fracturing operations and oil field services, where he was paid very well as compared to government service. When Texas Governor George W. Bush appeared to be the Republican nominee for president in 2000, Bush appointed Cheney to chair the team to search for a vice presidential nominee. After reviewing the desired qualities for such a person, the team concluded that Cheney himself was the ideal candidate. Family, friends, and allies all concurred that the vice presidency was the job that Cheney had been preparing for all his professional life as the consummate number two man.

One former vice president once referred to the position as not worth as much a bucket of warm spit. Being the veep can be mostly ceremonial with that person not being one of the president’s confidants and subsequently out of the power loop. That conception of the position bedeviled vice presidents as diverse as John Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, future presidents all. That was the observation that former vice president Dan Quayle shared with Cheney to which Cheney replied that was not the agreement that Bush and he had made.

It seemed to many political pundits, including Republicans, that “W” had a character flaw and was a lightweight politically. The assumption in 2000 was that Bush needed a running mate with gravitas- dignity, seriousness, and a solemnity of manner- that would rub onto Bush. This was the first reason why Cheney was seen as the most powerful and influential vice president in our history,

The second reason was manifested because of the 9/11 attacks. Bush’s secretary of defense was Rumsfeld, Cheney’s friend and former mentor. I believe that Cheney and Rumsfeld so influenced President Bush in our response to 9/11 over more cautious officials such as Secretary of State Colin Powell that their policies were practically indistinguishable (hereafter they will be referred as BCR).

The United States was now beginning a new era of warfare. In our responses to 9/11 I believe that BCR made some profound mistakes that drained our human, budget, and material resources to the limit and eroded the trust of the people in our government. These mistakes were:

1.     The Afghan war was won in three months with special operations and the CIA. The Taliban government had fallen and the Al-Qaeda sanctuary had been destroyed. However, BCR decided to stay to “nation build” despite the evidence of history to the contrary.

2.     The joint US/UK Tora Bora operation led by Delta Force could have captured or killed Osama ben Laden in December 2001 if BCR had given them the necessary resources and authorization to do so.

3.     The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was totally unnecessary due to a massive intelligence failure. BCR immediately assumed there was an Iraq connection to 9/11 and when that “dog did not hunt” BCR latched onto the WMD myth- weapons of mass destruction- partially because Iraq’s leaders bragged that they possessed such weapons. US and UK intelligence agencies totally failed in this regard and to my knowledge no American official was held accountable for this disaster except for Rumsfeld was forced to resign when the occupation became a political liability.

4.     The Patriot Act became the legal justification for the unconstitutional electronic surveillance of ordinary and innocent Americans. The FISA Court proceedings were conducted in secret with the court routinely lied to by the FBI and other agencies.

5.     The Federal government grew massively with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Publicized as a reorganization of agencies to be more effective, the new department gobbles up money and people, and is not effective, particularly at the Southern border.

6.     Instead of reorganizing our 17 intelligence agencies, BCR added a new layer- the Director of National Intelligence. The organization of this office resembles a mini-National Security Council.

When Cheney left office for the last time in 2009 his approval rating had dropped from 68% post-9/11 to 13%.

 

Liz Cheney was born in 1966 in Madison Wisconsin where her parents were doctoral students there. She lived briefly in Wyoming as a youth while her father campaigned in the state for the congressional seat he eventually won. Cheney graduated from high school in McLean Virginia and like her mother, attended Colorado College. She then earned her law degree from the University of Chicago. While in Chicago, she also took course in Middle Eastern history,

Before attending law school, Cheney worked for the Department of State and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), as well as for a law firm. After law school, she practiced law and worked for the International Finance Corporation, which is associated with the World Bank. Then Cheney returned to the Department of State as a special assistant and later as an USAID officer in our embassies in Romania and Poland.

In 2002, Cheney was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, a position to promote economic change and development in the region. After two years she left to join the 2004 Bush-Cheney reelection campaign working on women’s issues. Following the election, she was named Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs where she promoted initiatives for democracy, education, and economic development in the Middle East and North Africa, In that position Cheney also chaired the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group.

After resigning from the State Department in 2007 Cheney was involved in political campaigns, nonprofit work, and being a Fox News contributor. In 2013, she decided to return to Wyoming to campaign for the Senate against an incumbent Republican senator. Being in an uphill struggle to gain support, she stressed her state roots, in which she was panned by a journalist, “…she talked up her Wyoming roots and wore boots. But I chatted with her at one stop, her jeans were so new that her hands were stained blue from touching them.”  Also, the Facebook post launching her campaign was geotagged to McLean Virginia, her primary residence at the time. Cheney withdrew from the race before the primary,

Nevertheless, two years later, Cheney returned to Wyoming to run for the open lone House seat once held by her father. She was the leader from the beginning and handily won the primary and the general election. She was re-elected in 2018 and 2020 by wide margins. However, she lost the 2022 Republican primary winning only 29% of the votes compared to her main challenger’s 66% of the vote, the second worst defeat of a House incumbent in the last 60 years.

What happened? There are several reasons-

·       Cheney has the appearance and personality of her father. Dick was not a retail politician and I gather that neither is Liz. In her concession speech on August 24, 2022, she appeared cold and stiff.

·       She really has not lived in Wyoming except for about a year in her youth and when she established legal residence in the Jackson Hole area for her Senate and House campaigns. More realistically, Cheney is a “creature” of the Washington, DC eastern GOP establishment unlike her father when he was in the House. As such, Cheney was vulnerable to a serious challenge from a candidate from her own party.

·       Although technically not a neoconservative, Cheney more identified with neoconservatives than did her father. She had a strong professional relationship with Bill Kristol, a leading neoconservative and an advocate for strong and aggressive US policies to fight evil in the world including long wars like in Afghanistan and Iraq. Liz, Dick, and Bill were all in agreement at this point.

·       When President Trump criticized the Iraq war and began negotiations for US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Cheney saw his words and action as a direct rebuke of her father. For Cheney, this became personal.

·       Bill Kristol is a fervent “never-Trumper.”  With what she perceived as an attack on the reputation of her father as well as her friendship with Kristol, Cheney came to the conclusion, I believe, that Trump was a danger to American values even before January 6, 2021. Joining nine Republican colleagues and all Democrats of the House she voted to impeach Trump for inciting the January 6^th attack on the Capitol even though Trump had already left office. A Senate conviction would prevent Trump from running for President ever again.

·       Cheney agreed to serve on the House committee to investigate the January 6^th Capitol attack. Only one other Republican was on the committee, a pro-impeachment congressman from Illinois. Many other Republicans who had publicly condemned the attack saw this “investigation” as blatantly unfair and perhaps illegal.

For all these reasons together were the basis, I believe, for 7 out of 10 voters in the Wyoming House Republican primary to reject Cheney for her return to the US House of Representatives. [Some commentators and pundits have criticized and even satirized Cheney’s concession speech on August 16 claiming she compared herself to Abraham Lincoln. I personally watched her speech in real time, and I do not believe she did so. She held up Lincoln as an inspirational leader. To criticize her for doing so only reveals the biases of the commentators and pundits claiming this]

So, to summarize, what can be said about the Cheneys, their dynasty, and the impact on American political life-

1.     The Cheneys are tough people willing to take unpopular stances and actions in which they beleive, and to take the criticism for their words and actions..

2.     Dick was able to overcome his personal issues during his younger adulthood to make his mark in the public arena so the question is whether Liz can overcome her political issues to complete her contribution in public service.

3.     The Cheneys are  not retail politicians. Serving in Congress for Dick was a holding station for even greater political contributions. Serving in Congress for Liz may prove likewise,

4.      Despite their record of public service, the Cheney legacy is linked to endless wars for Dick in particular, torture; For Liz in particular it is being a never-Trumper. And time is running out for Liz to make a more positive contribution to the legacy of this family political dynasty. If she cannot, perhaps one or more of her children will take up the cause and move forward.

 

HARD WORK AND PREPARATION

I will now confess- my wife and I watch Britbox on television. We are enamored by British crime and political thrillers. PBS only gives us a sampling of those shows, but PBS does have a series entitled COBRA.

If you are like me and hate snakes, I can assure you that COBRA is not about snakes, at least not the reptilian kind. For those of you uninitiated with the British government (aka United Kingdom or simply, UK) COBRA stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A. The Cabinet Office is somewhat akin to our Executive Office of the President with its numerous offices and personnel and COBRA itself is like our National Security Council meeting in the White House Situation Room. So, COBRA is a committee of selected government officials who meet with the prime minister in response to natural disasters, terrorism, cyber attacks, and similar emergencies affecting the UK.

Lisa Palfrey is a Welsh actress who plays Eleanor James, chair of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee, on COBRA. Palfrey has a script requiring her as James to sprout off gobs and gobs of intelligence jargon. In an interview, Palfrey admits she often does not understand most of the scripted technical words she uses so she does a lot of internet searches to ascertain what she is saying.

I find Palfrey’s confession refreshing. Here is a trained and experienced actress who admits she does the homework to be prepared and credible on camera so viewers like me will be entertained. How many leaders just “wing it” as they wade into unchartered waters, falter, and miss the objectives set out before the leader and his/her team? Let Lisa Palfrey as Eleanor James be your guide. Do the hard work and prepare for your assignments. Your supervisors will take note and your team will be appreciative,  

 

THE PURSUIT OF LIMITS, PART 2

 

[A good friend of mine recently read my essay post entitled “Prudence, Humility, and the Pursuit of Limits.” Then he asked me if I could frame the theme in an essay with Democratic, rather than Republican, presidents. The following is my humble attempt to do so.] 

The highlight of summer 1960 was the Democratic National Convention meeting in Los Angeles. The primary aim of the convention was to nominate a winning presidential candidate. The party had been shaken by two straight losses by the intellectual Adlai Stevenson of Illinois (dubbed an “egghead” by his opponents) to General Eisenhower, often perceived as a lightweight. And this was coming after 16 years of dominance with the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. The year 1960 was needed to be one of victory for the party.

The two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination going into Los Angeles were two senators. That was about the one thing they shared in common. One senator was from the northeast, Harvard graduate, book author, old money rich, and handsome with a beautiful wife. The other was from the south, teachers college graduate, let others write books, corruption rich, and average looking with an attractive wife. Also, the first senator had little legislative accomplishment while the other was considered by many to be the greatest Senate Majority Leader in the history of that institution. They were, of course, John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ).

For a nine-year-old political junkie like me the convention was pure drama. After several votes, JFK finally prevailed and knowing he needed Texas to win the election, he sent his brother, campaign manager, and future Attorney General Robert (Bobby) Kennedy to ask LBJ to join the ticket. Despite the fact that LBJ hated Bobby (and did not think too highly of JFK) he accepted. Atter a close election which featured for the first-time presidential debates on television, JFK entered the White House and LBJ entered obscurity.

Inauguration Day- January 20, 1961- was sunny and very cold. JFK to show vigor did not wear a hat as many in the audience did. After poetry by Robert Frost and being sworn in as our new chief executive, JFK began his speech. It was inspiring. A new generation was taking over and the “new kids on the block” will be able to do whatever they wanted. The “ask not” part was the highlight as Americans would bear any sacrifice to advance our principles in a hostile world. A new era is now upon us. Alas, the cold day was prescient of the cold hard reality to come.

The target was the Bay of Pigs, a heretofore minor beachhead on the southwestern shore of Cuba. The plans were for a battalion-size armed group of Cuban exiles (the self-styled Brigade 2505) with air support to land and commence a revolt against the communist dictatorship of Fidel Castro. All this activity was under the auspices of the United States government, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) which had recruited, trained, and armed Brigade 2506. Planning began in the last months of the Eisenhower Administration and passed on to the JFK Administration without hardly any review.

April 1961 was to JFK what Spring 1975 was to President Ford and what August 2021 was to President Biden- embarrassing national military and intelligence failures. JFK denied air support for the landing thus dooming the operation. Those not killed outright or executed by firing squads (including several Americans) were imprisoned. The prisoners were freed in 1963 when they were ransomed by the United States for farm equipment and other supplies to the Cuban government. Camelot had met realpolitik. (JFK’s perceived weaknesses as a leader prompted the Soviet Union to have East Germany built the infamous Berlin Wall which lasted three decades.

Yet, if anything, JFK was a learner. He had the humility to know the difference between rhetoric and reality. So, when Cuba reemerged as an issue in October 1962 with the “Missiles of October” confrontation with Cuba and the Soviet Union, JFK had the experience and wisdom to question his military and intelligence experts to discern between perceptions and reality, and he clashed particularly with his Joint Chiefs of Staff who leaned more towards war rather than a peaceful solution to the crisis. In the end, war was prevented because JFK reckoned nuclear annihilation was not worth Cuba, but also that if he did not demonstrate strength with patience and prudence the United States could very well unwillingly have gotten a “nuclear winter” in 1962.

The thirteen-day crisis was soon over to the relief of everyone. Lessons were learned and then the unthinkable happened just thirteen months. The assassination of JFK on November 22, 1963 not only changed presidents but governing spirit and style emulating from the White House. LBJ was unleashed finally from the vice presidency that one of his predecessors had observed that “was not worth a bucket of warm spit.” LBJ was a man without limits and with endless hungers. He had gone from being the “Master of the Senate” to being ignored by JFK and his Ivy League circle. He especially hated Robert Kennedy (RFK), the late president’s brother and attorney general who had served as the “deputy president” with far more influence with JFK than himself. LBJ also idolized President Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal social programs.

Using the memory of his slain processor as motivation, LBJ launched his own legislative agenda which included civil rights, fair housing, education, and an end to poverty. He was going to outdo the New Deal with his vision of the Great Society. But another country- Vietnam- was going to have the last word. To his critics who lamented both a major war with half a million armed Americans in theater fighting communist guerillas and a major social transformation at home, LBJ hubrisly replied we could have both “Guns and Butter.” In the end, LBJ got neither.

In early 1968, North Vietnam launched major urban assaults in South Vietnam. Although the communists lost every battle, the television screens in American homes seemed to show otherwise. With US Marines fighting house-to-house in the city of Hue in the greatest urban combat in Asia since the Battle of Manila in 1945 between US and Japanese forces, Vietnam appeared to be a lost cause. An exhausted LBJ spoke to the nation on March 31 and told his fellow Americans that he would not seek a second full term as president.

And the Great Society went awry with the assassination of RFK in June, more anti-war protests throughout the spring and summer, and the “granddaddy” of all protests- the Chicago riot in August during the Democratic National Convention. The fabric of America was being ripped so the voters returned the White House to the Republicans. Several years after leaving the presidency, citizen LBJ was dead- his later years more of a Greek tragedy than “Hail to the Chief.”

After eight years featuring one of the most infamous political scandals in US history, a presidential resignation, and our only president never once being elected to national office, the voters returned the White House to a Democrat, the heretofore obscure former governor of Georgia- Jimmy Carter,

Carter was the first president elected from a southern state since the Civil War and the first culturally southerner elected since Woodrow Wilson. But Carter was different- he was not a racist, detested Jim Crow laws, and was a career naval officer before his father died and Carter resigned to enter the family business of peanut farming. He was also a faithful Evangelical Christian who vowed never to lie to the American people. Carter was perhaps the most honest, trustworthy, and the best role model to emulate as a politician since Abraham Lincoln, Unlike Lincoln, Carter did not succeed as president because he was too limited in what he could accomplish.

Carter’s presidency was wash in limits. First, the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC)- composed of Venezuela and Middle Eastern nations- created oil embargoes to the US and other western nations. As the price of a barrel of crude oil increases, so does a gallon of gasoline. Gasoline scarcity became an American fact of life as well as long lines of vehicles at gasoline stations. Second, the Carter Administration inherited high rates of inflation from the previous Republican administrations.

And with the attack on the US Embassy in Iran by Iranians protesting the American protection of the deposed Shah crippled Carter’s foreign policy agenda. Every evening for the remainder of his term in office major television networks highlighted the status of the nearly three dozen American hostages held in Tehran. Implored to do “something,” Carter eventually authorized a complex rescue operation which failed. Americans at home looked aghast at Iranian film showing dead US Delta Force commandos in the desert.

Frustrated by events overtaking him and limited at what he could do Carter in 1979 gave his in famous “malaise speech.” Although the word malaise the president set the tone of discontent among Americans but instead of pointing the finger at national leadership Carter seemingly blamed the people themselves for the persistent dissatisfaction in the country. In 1980, Carter faced a major challenge to his renomination for president by his party. Although he was nominated for a second party Carter lost in a landslide to the Republican candidate. And Carter left the White House to become the most effective former president in our history.

Bill Clinton in 1993 became our next Democratic president after 12 years of Republican rule. Having previously served as governor of Arkansas, Clinton had no real political agenda except for the economy, our economic indexes strived and grew throughout the eight years of his presidency. Possessing personal appeal and charisma, Clinton was able to work with a Republican-controlled Congress and especially with an equally charismatic Speaker of the House to create a balanced budget and welfare reform, among other legislation.

Nevertheless, Clinton’s magnetism had a dark side. Notorious in Arkansas as a womanizer, he brought his limitless appetite for women to the White House where he engaged in inappropriate activity with at least one college-aged intern. And both the President and the First Lady were accused of unlawful business activities in Arkansas. Mixing the two was disasterous for Clinton during his second term. He became only the second US president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Although the Senate refused to remove him from office, he was hampered for the rest of his presidency.

After eight years of a Republican president, Barrack Obama was elected as our next chief executive. Charismatic with a compelling life story- born in Hawaii to a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, parents divorce, lives for a time in Indonesia with mother and stepfather, moves back to Hawaii, mother dies, is raised by white grandparents through high school- Obama came to the White House with the US embroiled in two wars in the Middle East and is in the midst of one of the worst economic meltdowns in American history.

In his two first years, with Democrats controlling Congress, Obama is able stabilize the economy, begin planning to withdraw from one war, and get his signature piece of legislation- the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)- pass. In 2011, when Republicans gain control of Congress, he is less able to act. Finally, in frustration, he tells reporters that he has a phone and a pen. He was referring to executive orders, which give quick relief at the beginning but do not have staying power if future presidents do not like any action(s) addressed by an executive order.

This was the case in two of Obama’s signature foreign policy initiatives- the Paris Climate Accords and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka Iran nuclear deal). Constitutionally, both should have been ratified as treaties with at least two-thirds approval in the Senate. Knowing that they would not be approved in this matter, Obama went the executive order route. His immediate successor withdrew from both, although his successor re-entered the climate agreement.

Coda

We have had twelve presidents since 1961- six Democrats and six Republicans. Writing as an essayist and not as a historian, I have briefly described only six with the addition of a presidential candidate not elected to the White House in terms of prudence, humility, and limits. I will rate them in order:

1.     George H.W. Bush- “wouldn’t be prudent” should be in the mind of every powerful leader

2.     Ronald Reagan- despite rhetoric, was able to accomplish major goals

3.     Barrack Obama- major foreign policy initiatives were executive orders, not treaties

4.     Jimmy Carter- overwhelmed by limits

5.     Bill Clinton- overwhelmed by personal demons

6.     Lyndon Johnson- “Guns and Butter- too much, too expensive, too expansive

7.     Barry Goldwater- (we have no way to know how he would have governed as president so this is a guess) despite rhetoric, he would have pursued victory in Vietnam but would have governed more prudentially at home

Bonus

Considering presidents from April 1945 to now, I would rate Harry Truman as possibly number one. He entered office on the death of Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) and wanted to continue the legacy of FDR with the New Deal social programs but foreign policy had to dealt with as a priority  He ordered the atomic bombings of Japan to end World War II, he ordered the Berlin Airlift to keep West Berlin free from Soviet domination, he recognized Israel as an independent nation, he integrated the armed forces, he initiated the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Europe, he created the Truman Doctrine to protect Greece and Turkey from communist influence, he sent troops to South Korea to repel a communist invasion, he prohibited atomic bombings of China, and he fired General MacArthur from command. Truman accomplished all the above with prudence and humility and knowing his limits of avoiding war with the Soviet Union.

MARSHALL'S DILEMMA

From earlier essays, the perceptive reader know that I consider George Marshall a in personal hero of mine addition to Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. From a humble childhood to holding some of the highest offices in our government, Marshall exhibited a set of personal and professional qualities that are worth emulating.

Marshall faced several difficult choices in his career, but I am focusing in this essay on only one, the one that I consider pivotal to his life Unlike Churchill’s dilemma which occurred when the prime minister was 65 years of age, Marshall’s dilemma of which I will be describing occurred when he was merely 16 years old.

Our story begins in 1880 when George Marshall was born on the last day of the year. He grew up in Uniontown, near Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. His father was a businessman, sometimes successful and sometimes not, and was a distant descendant of Chief Justice John Marshall. Marshall was closer to his mother who, like his father, had moved to Pennsylvania from Kentucky along the Ohio River.

Marshall was an indifferent student who was hardly college material. His older brother Stuart had been a cadet at Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and Marshall decided that was also the place for him, especially when he overheard Stuart tell their mother that he (George) would not be successful there.

What exactly was the magic of VMI? For southerners. VMI represented the defeated Confederacy in all its glory with special reverence for Generals Lee and Jackson. And for northerners, VMI was perhaps perceived as a poor man’s West Point and also for the virtues it sought to instill in every cadet. David Brooks describes the school in 1897 as possessing “…a moral culture that brought together several ancient traditions: a chivalric devotion to service and courtesy, a stoic commitment to emotional self-control, and a classical devotion to honor.” Alas, VMI was short in academics and Marshall as a future student did not excel academically but he mastered the discipline and loyalty of the place. Discipline and loyalty were what he needed and what drove him to success in his military and civilian professions.

When Marshall arrived at VMI in 1897 one week late due to illness he hardly had the necessary discipline, but he quickly sensed that loyalty was needed for success at VMI. Hazing was a fact of life for first year students at colleges, more so then and less so now. One night very soon after his arrival Marshall was the target specially since he was a northerner with a Yankee accent. The older cadets jammed the blunt end of a bayonet into the wooden floor and ordered Marshall to squat over the sharp blade. He could not hold that position long due to his illness and he slipped with the bayonet gashing his hindside. The older cadets rushed Marshall to the infirmary fearful that they had gone too far. Bandaged up, Marshall refused to identify the culprits and soon word-of-mouth got around at VMI that Marshall was loyal. He had earned the respect of the cadet corps.

With the foundational VMI virtues being instilled into Marshall coupled with the nascent values of loyalty and respect, he was molded into a leader. After becoming First Corporal in his second year and First Sergeant in his third year, Marshall was awarded the top cadet position in his senior- First Captain. He was beginning to learn how to lead and manage men.

After 38 years of moving up in the military ranks, George Marshall was named Army Chief of Staff, serving 1939- 1945. The day after his retirement, he was named special envoy to China, then secretary of state and later secretary of defense. Winston Churchill once called him “The greatest living American.”

I believe that Marshall owes much of his success and acclaim were due to his response to that that hazing incident when as a sly and awkward boy of 16 years of age and away from home for the first time, chose not to name his assailants who had gone too far in the plank that wounded him.

The question for us as leaders is how do we respond to those unintentional, and even intentional, slights and gossip directed at us? Of course, sexual harassment, threats of violence, and the like are not to be tolerated. However, many slights and such do not rise to that level. Your response to those may determine the course of your career. So, know your context and choose wisely.

CHURCHILL'S DILEMMA

 

Winston Churchill is one of my favorite leaders. He was 65 years of age when the King appointed him to be prime minister of Great Britain, an age when most men are considering retirement, not a promotion. For Churchill, being the leader of his beloved nation was the accumulation of his destiny that he had held since he was a boy.

The purpose of this essay is not to examine his leadership qualities and weaknesses; the eager and curious reader can find these in numerous (almost too numerous in that the authors of contemporary Churchill biographies feel the need to explain why yet another book on this man is being published). Rather, my purpose here is to dive into an action he took early in his premiership that shines a light on his leadership thought and character.

Far too many so-called leaders view their leadership as primarily one of position to focus on themselves. Real leaders are active from their positions and authority to do what is best for their people with the focus on action. Churchill’s focus in World War II was to defeat Nazi Germany whom he considered to be a threat to Western Civilization. Having named himself defense minister in addition to being prime minister the epicenter of the British war effort, for better or for worse, on this man. He delegated domestic policies to other cabinet ministers.

Our story begins on May 10, 1940. On the day Churchill is promoted to Prime Minister from First Lord of the Admiralty (the ministerial head of the Royal Navy) to replace Neville Chamberlain, Nazi Germany invaded France, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Denmark. The Belgians, Dutch, and Danes quickly fell to the Nazi onslaught and the French army and the supporting large British Expeditionary Force (BEF) were stunned by the rapid Nazi advance into France. The allied retreat was in full swing and by late May they were centered on Dunkirk surrounded by the sea on one side and the Nazis on the other three. Churchill ordered an evacuation expecting limited success. But between May 26 and June 3 a flotilla of Royal Navy warships and private yachts, trawlers, and fishing boats of all sizes rescued about 330,000 British and French soldiers in a massively successful Naval operation.  There was another successful, yet lesser-known sea evacuation several weeks later further south. But Churchill warned his people that wars are not won by evacuations.

As the war continued in France, the renowed elan (fighting spirit) of the French army and civilian morale were waning. Churchill personally flew to France several times to visit French leaders urging them to continue the fight. He even proposed a stunning union of Britain and France to fight as one nation against Nazi Germany. From these meetings Churchill sensed that France was done for and was not surprised by the French surrender on June 22 Britain was now alone.

The Nazis divided France into two sections- the fully occupied north and a pro-Nazi puppet government led by French collaborators headquartered in the city of Vichy, commonly known as Vichy France. While the Vichy administered French overseas colonies in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the Caribbean, Nazi ideology and policies reigned. Now came Churchill’s dilemma and how he dealt with this dilemma could determine the outcome of the British war effort against Nazi tyranny.

The French fleet, nominally under Vichy control, was anchored at the naval base of Mers-el-Kebir near the city of Oran, Algeria in North Africa. The squadron there consisted of two battleships, two battle cruisers, and perhaps a dozen support ships. If these ships fell under Nazi control, then the Mediterranean Sea would eventuality fall under Nazi and Italian control, endangering British bases at Gibraltar and Malta, and more importantly, cut off Egypt and the Suez Canal, and make supplying India nearly impossible.

Churchill ordered Admiral James Somerville to assemble Task Force H to sail to Oran to conduct what Churchill later wrote of as “…a hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned.” For if the French ships did not join the Royal Navy or did not sail to the United States or a French colonial territory for the duration of the war, or were not scuttled in the harbor, Task Force H had the authority to attack the French ships to disable them to keep them from possible Nazi control.

Task Force H arrived at Oran on the morning of July 3. After eight hours of negotiations proved futile, the British ships commenced their attack. Within ten minutes, three of the French capital ships were sunk or beached and 1,250 French sailors were killed.

What are we to make of Churchill’s decision? While some commentators lamented this attack as betrayal of a former ally, most concurred with Churchill that the action, while distasteful, was necessary to win the war. Even more important, a watchful President Roosevelt in the United States now knew that Churchill was serious about winning and that he, Roosevelt, could begin aiding Britain in small ways at first and then with increasing larger assistance until December 1941, when there was a full-blown alliance between the United States and Great Britain to defeat Nazi Germany and thus save Western Civilization.

As a leader of whatever organization that you lead, you will most probably not be called upon or feel the necessity of sinking ships and killing former allies. But deep in your heart of hearts, do you have the ability to make often personally painful decisions to assist your organization to stay focused on its mission?