Not Merely Admired

"He was a man that could talk to you," a farmer remembered. "He had sense enough to talk to a man who didn't have any education, and he had sense enough to talk to the best educated man in the world; and he was easy to talk to. He could talk about anything." Roosevelt also listened. The stories of low farm prices, failed banks, and rurarl poverty stayed with him into the White House.

To be a great president, said FDR, required "the quality of soul which makes a man loved by little children, by dumb animals, that quality of soul which makes him a strong help to those in sorrow or trouble, that quality which makes him not merely admired but loved by all the people - the quality of sympathetic understanding of the human heart, of real interest in one's fellow man."

Jean Edward Smith, FDR, (New York: Random House, 2007), 218, 222.

It is easy to be completely enamored by the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. He certainly made mistakes during his tenure, but he had the unique ability to be truly loved by people. He knew how to have a conversation with people. He knew how to listen to people. He knew what mattered to people. It was his ability to connect with regular people and have them actually fully believed he cared about them as an individual that stuck out. He understood people & chose to care for them. People were not mere statistics. He was admired for his leadership but loved for his care & connection.

The single greatest quality missing from today's leadership is that: care & concern for one's fellow man. All around me I see quality leadership that can lead in tough times, make difficult decisions, and forecast incredible vision. But lost amongst all of it - is a genuine concern for people. Leaders don't listen any more. Leaders can't "talk about anything" any more. Leaders simply don't care any more. Leadership has become about building power, establishing networks with influential people, and being stoic in the midst of crisis. And yet in all the good we get from that, we miss out as people on being cared for. On being loved. On being listened to. We desperately crave a leader who will lead but also love. If it is enough to simply be admired - a leader has already fallen woefully short of what they could & should be.

The "quality of soul" as FDR put it makes a person not only a good president or leader; but a genuine person worthy of admiration and love. That is what I desire to be.

The Ebb & Flow of Confidence

The Great Bear of Wall Street legend, Jesse Livermore, once observed that 'stocks could be beat, but that no one could beat the stock market.' By that he meant that while it was possible to predict the factors that caused any given stock to rise or fall, the overall market was driven by the ebb and flow of confidence, a force so intagible and elusive that it was not readily discernible to most people.

Liaquat Ahamed, The Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World, (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 307.

Confidence is a funny thing. It can often be the decisive factor in a variety of situations from competitions to performances to the stock market. The great stock market crash of '29 came about as a result of confidence. At first ballooning out of control, and then spiraling downward in the same manner - the confidence of people drove the stock market. The highest of highs was followed by the lowest of lows. Fortunes, hopes, and the stability of the US economy were all impacted by the intangible force of confidence. Although it was predictable that the stock market would suffer from its unreasonable heights - no one could have predicted the severity of the downward turn in confidence.

How do you keep confidence becomes the question. As it was in 1929, the financial experts of America & the key political leaders associated with them must convince the American people to have confidence. While driving in California this past week, I saw numerous "Recession Facts" billboards. All of them said essentially the same thing in trying to restore confidence in the economy. As times become more desperate, people become more willing to lose hope and confidence that good will come. It is in these moments that leaders are tested the most. Confidence becomes the key issue that leaders must learn how to instill in their people.

If we can learn anything from '29, it is that confidence is a very weak platform. It is ready to give in at any moment. It follows a roller coaster pattern of up & down with very little chance for stability. Which means that we must learn how to harness its power, and limit its ability for damage. Leaders become leaders by doing exactly that. Their people follow believing that great things are in store, while trusting that downtimes are but a blip on the radar. The test therefore of great leadership is to gauge the confidence of your followers. Although difficult to predict & control, it is that level of confidence that will make or break how you lead.

Casualties Of War

[In looking at the Great War] The experts seemed to have forgotten that among the first casualties of war is not only truth but also sound finance. None of the big wars of the previous century - for example, the Napoleonic Wars or the American Civil War - had been held back by a mere lack of gold. These had been fights to the death in which the belligerents had been willing to resort to everything and anything - taxes, borrowing, the printing of ever large quantities of money - to raise the cash to pay for the war.

Liaquat Ahamed, The Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World, (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 75.

The Great War (World War I) would impact the world economy like no other war before it. As a result of the war, the United States became the premier economic superpower in the world. However, they did so at the expense of the economies of Europe. As a result, the economies of Europe would face the 1920s trying desperately to dig themselves out of the massive holes they created by fighting a costly war (in terms of both human sacrifice & sound financial sacrifice). Eventually the instability in Europe and poor financial decision making would cripple the entire world. No one was spared from the disaster that we now call the Great Depression.

What's interesting in it all, is how war completely destroys a nation's ability to think clearly. Men and women become mere statistical data to be used and sacrificed at the will of a leader. Sound financial thinking gets tossed out the window as money is poured into an effort that may or may not even accomplish the intended purposes of the conflict. Strife is stirred up & sewn on the hearts of yet another generation. And in the end, no matter how much you inflict damage on the opponent, their mindset never truly changes. As a result, the aftermath of war is a field of destruction touching every aspect of a country.

The sad reality is that a study of history conclusively shows that choosing war over rational & peaceful diplomacy is always the most brutal & horrific choice. But as we continue to see all over the globe, leaders and bands of people refused to acknowledge this. Truth, sound finance, and life continue to be the commodities we are willing to sacrifice on the altar of being right & inflicting our opinion on our opponent.

The Malady of Self-Delusion

Kissinger would have done well to take counsel from Calvin Coolidge's observation that "It is difficult for men high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers...They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner of later impairs their judgment."

Robert Dallek, Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 488.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely the old saying says. The office of the presidency provided Nixon with untolds amount of power, prestige, and exaltation. He had government officials and government agencies at his finger tips - willing to do what he saw was right. He become the driving force behind world affairs. He experienced high approval ratings (not right away, but pretty quickly - and they stayed there until Watergate) from the American public. He was surrounded by men who in their own personal thirst for power were willing to accomodate his delusions. What Richard Nixon wanted, Richard Nixon was going to get.

Self-delusion is almost impossible to avoid when pride, arrogance, and complete freedom are given. Our judgment cannot avoid being impaired when we are surrounded by people who are our biggest fans. Pride is a natural outcome of position & title. No matter how high your position is - you have some degree of adulation from those beneath you. The problem is when that adulation becomes the voice you hear for making judgments. What to do? Cut out the worshipers. Don't look for praise when doing your job. Don't depend upon positive feedback after delivering a performance. Don't live for reassurance. Simply do what you need to do - in the best possible way to do it - and crave criticism that can help you execute better.

Identity

It is astonishing that in the midst of a major international crisis the principal American policy makers would be fretting over whether they came across as "tough." Impressing foreign adversaries as firm about U.S. national interests made sense, but there was something less than rational about "coming off like men." It was if the contest with Soviet Russia was a test of Nixon's manhood. Personalizing a great crisis or turning any political debate into a battle over a leader's identity or sense of self is never calculated to serve the national interest. In the end, it is amazing how well Nixon and Kissinger did in making foreign policy in spite of unacknowledged impulses to make decisions partly based on their amour propre.

Robert Dallek, Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 346.

Nixon & Kissinger spent the majority of their time at the pinnacle of their power concerned about their identities. Each of them was deeply obsessed with fostering an identity that would highlight their impressive resumes of accomplishment. Their days were shaped around creating images that the world would be completely grateful for and dependent upon. They wanted the world to need them and desired to be seen as experts on a global scale. Each problem they tackled was done with a sense of vanity and expectation that it would prop them up. Because of this, they constantly had to strive in order to maintain the lofty status they believed they had to have. Entire policies and worldwide political decisions were made to reinforce themselves. The problem of course came about when cutting corners and taking advantage of the law became "necessary" for survival. But even before that, the problem could clearly be seen in something as simple as Nixon needing to tame the Soviets in order to feel good about himself. It was if he was still the kid on the playground showing off to impress the cute little ponytail girl.

When our sense of worth and identity is shaped by the things we do and what others think about us, we will never find peace. There is always something more or better to do and there will always be someone who is not impressed by you. What's worse is we put ourselves in the uncomfortable position of making decisions not based upon what's best but what feeds our egos. Even if it does turn out right (Nixon's going to China for example), we live with the knowledge that we chose based upon ourselves instead of doing what we thought was best. Everyone has an identity. So the question becomes - what are the forces you are allowing to shape yours?

Disservice

It is difficult to understand how anyone could work for someone as volatile and irrational as Nixon sometimes was. Most likely, Kissinger and others rationalized their collaboration as helping to save Nixon from himself. After all, he was a democratically elected president and they saw themselves as servign the national well-being by reining him in. Yet what seems so striking in the record is how often the people around Nixon catered to his outbursts and flights of fancy rather than calling him back to reality by challenging some of his most unsavory and unenforceable demands. It was a way to remain at Nixon's side but it was a disservice to sensible policy making. It also speaks volumes about the reluctance of high government officials to alienate a president and perhaps force their departure from an office they believe gives them the chance to shape history-making events.

Robert Dallek, Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 316.

There can be little doubt that Kissinger and the other men in Nixon's close presidential circle saw that he was a lunatic. Although Nixon was extremely brilliant and had some good policy ideas, his paranoia, nervous breakdowns, alcoholism, and wild rants had to be of major concern. Certainly it would have been difficult to challenge the authority of a President - especially one as determined as Nixon was on retaliating against those he thought were out to get him. However, how many mistakes and poor decisions were executed or supported simply out of this fear? Even worse is the idea that some might be willing to cater to lunacy simply because they liked the taste of power they had in his inner circle at the highest level of authority in America. Disservice to the masses was allowable as long as it helped maintain their own status quo.

In this case, I think the real issue & problem lies with the supporting cast instead of the main actor. What Nixon needed was sensible truth & someone willing to speak it. The tragedy was the demise of a presidency because the supporting cast cared more about their ability to hang onto a role than shape correct policy. Of course stepping up and calling out a leader may get you fired, let go, or pushed the outer edges of obscurity. But that becomes a small price to pay to ensure that history will remember you as the one that stuck to your principles. Is it really worth accepting, dealing with, or even defending policies, decisions, and retaliations you disagree with simply to save your job? Is whatever amount of power you feel from your current position truly worth the compromise it takes to keep it? And who knows. Maybe, just maybe, in speaking up you will prevent a disaster and will earn even more respect from the commander in chief.

The Cost of Self-Interest

Nixon wanted to plan the removal of all U.S. troops by the end of 1971, but Henry [Kissinger] cautioned that if North Vietnam then destabilized Saigon in 1972, it could have an adverse effect on the president's reelection. He recommended a pullout in the fall of 1972, "so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election." He had nothing to say about the American lives that would be lost in the service of Nixon's reelection. After two years serving Nixon, Kissinger was as cynical about politics as his chief.

Robert Dallek, Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 257.

To a degree, every politician is self-interested. The glory that comes with being elected to a position certainly fosters the feeling. Once given the position and the power associated with it, the desire to remain in it has to be strong. In the case of Nixon & Kissinger, it appears that many of their decisions were based more upon reelection in '72 than in making the best possible solutions. How would Vietnam had ended for the United States had Nixon simply been concerned with ending the conflict instead of using it to bolster his image? Certainly Nixon & Kissinger are no different from most politicians. However, the evidence points to men who, in particular, were so consumed with power & position that they lost track of reality. Were the lives of soldiers - both American and Vietnamese - really worth another term in office?

The question is when does it become acceptable to think of one's own personal needs & desires before acting for the good of the masses? What sacrifices become okay so that you can keep your authority, power, and title? Ethics become a very tricky thing to hold onto because they almost certainly face getting cut so that we can hold onto whatever it is that we think we need. After all - we don't reelect or hold onto unpopular leaders. As long as we refuse to see the cost of self-interest, we will continue to hold onto it as a means to prop ourselves up. The cost in human lives will always be great with this line of thinking. But in the end, each of us is so concerned about our own needs that we willingly hold onto a broken system because none of us are willing to sacrifice ourselves to stop it.

Diplomacy

When a journalist later asked him what personal qualities he considered essential to diplomatic exchanges, Henry replied: "Knowledge of what I am trying to do. Knowledge of the subject. Knowledge of the history and psychology of the people I am dealing with. And some human rapport...To have some human relations with the people I am negotiating with. This takes some rough edges off. They won't make concessions they wouldn't otherwise make."

Robert Dallek, Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 150-151.

One of the ways Nixon hopelessly tried to dig America out of the disaster known as Vietnam, was sending Kissinger to secretly try to negotiate with the North Vietnamese. The hope was to somehow get the North Vietnamese to agree to certain conditions which would have allowed the United States to leave without shame. The negotiations would prove to be fruitless as did the entire conflict. Attempting to eradicate a people's desire for self-determination often is futile. However, despite the negotiations proving to be worthless, Kissinger's stated model of diplomacy (stated being key - as both Nixon & Kissinger were not known for producing a rapport with anyone outside of their circles) is worthy of acknowledgement.

The first step is knowing the purpose of what you are trying to accomplish. What are your goals? What do you need to make sure happens? What are you actually talking about? Too often diplomacy fails because the purpose behind it is muddy leaving the negotiator trying to figure it out on the fly. The next step is to know the history/psychology of who you are dealing with. This is where I believe the U.S. failed in dealing with North Vietnam. They simply did not understand that they were never going to give up. It was more than just a war to them - it was a sense of pride and identity. If you do not understand the history/psyschology of who you are dealing with - you will continue to push forth a plan that will never fit.

The third and perhaps most crucial step is that of having a rapport with whoever it is you are dealing with. I believe this is the most overlooked dynamic in diplomacy and dealing with people. Too often relationship is assumed and it leads to disaster. Don't assume the people you are dealing with like you or want anything to do with you (including colleagues, subordinates, opponents, etc). Without this crucial step - you will too often assume things are going better then they actually are. "Rough edges" as Kissinger called them are often the greatest obstacles to resolution. If things do not seem to be working out - this is where I would start looking first.

Reality of Success

...most politicians are drawn to public life by the personal satisfaction of fame and adulation: some of the greatest men and women in history have struggled with inner demons that motivated their ambitions. Personal aspirations, however, can make for problems when they are incompatible with ethical public standards; it is usually the latter that suffer. The careers of both Nixon and Kissinger reflect the extent to which great accomplishments and public wrongdoing can spring from inner lives.

Robert Dallek, Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 34.

What motivates our leadership, ambition, and aspirations? The stories of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger are highly fascinating if for nothing else that they showcase a pair of people who's inner struggles were revealed on the highest of levels. Their drive for success and power pushed both of them to reveal the shadier parts of themselves. And perhaps unfortunately, no matter what accomplishments they might have made - the dark stains are all we remember.

The difficulty with studying somebody like Richard Nixon is that if we are honest with ourselves, we know that our own inner demons often motivate what we strive and aim to do in our lives. We might deceive ourselves and others that what we desire is good for everyone...but the reality is we too would bend our own ethical standards for the the shot at achieving that which our hearts most desire. What we are left with is great accomplishment with heavy sacrifice. Our careers, accomplishments, and accolades look impressive but the trailing wake reveals broken marriages, neglected kids, damaged colleagues, and an ethical record that is so variant that it is hard to determine where we stand in life.

What's the cost? At what point do we realize that while we might be succeeding in the ways that get us a pat on the back - we are actually failing as people? That line is so often blurred in history that it has hard to determine if those we admire the most are also those we should pity the most.

Incapable of Compromise

John respected Moses and cultivated his friendship, but he was never going to allow that consideration to restrict his decisions in business or in politics. Driven, self-directed, skeptical of and perhaps incapable of compromise, John might try to seek accommodation, but always in the end he listened to his own counsel.

Charles Rappleye, Sons of Providence: The Brown Brothers, The Slave Trade, and The American Revolution, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 239.

When should people seek compromise & accommodation? That becomes the question when studying the lives of John & Moses Brown. What issues beg the need for compromise? What issues need a stubborn, unyielding mule stance? The two brothers constantly met up against one another in a battle of wills for the ages. Although time (and simple logic) would show the error of most of John's battles - the sheer audacity of his dissent is simply amazing. His driven personality made things happen. He desired relationships & harmony - but he was unwilling to allow either to dictate the decisions he made.

Which begs the question of how much stubborness must a leader have? The reality is that being a person of compromise can often make you weak & incapable of making the tough calls and forging ahead. Seeking & cultivating relationships may win you friends - but in the end you'll be passed over for the promotion. John Brown got things done. He was wrong in a lot of areas - but he got things done. In the end what is the real value in society - compromise or action? Which of those should we seek in ourselves & in our pursuit of teaching character development? And if at the end of the day it is our counsel we end up listening to anyway - have we really even showed any true compromise?

Hypocrisy

The reference to slavery was commonplace for the colonial protests against Britain: back in 1764, in his Rights of the Colonies Examined, Stephen Hopkins had proclaimed that "those who are governed at the will of another, and whose property may be taken from them by taxes...without their own consent...are in the miserable condition of slaves." In the years since, the metaphor had become ubiquitous: the acts of Parliament would end in "perpetual slavery," "unmerited slavery," "vile ignominious slavery." The obvious connection to the actual practice of slavery by those same liberty-loving colonists was rarely mentioned.

Charles Rappleye, Sons of Providence: The Brown Brothers, The Slave Trade, and The American Revolution, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 143.

For the colonists, the idea of liberty was what they talked about, dreamed about, and eventually fought about. As Patrick Henry would later exclaim, "Give me liberty or give me death!" The ability to live & act according to one's own will is a very precious thing - especially in the design of democracy. No one would deny the truth to the colonist's fight. But it was their oversight that sticks out looking back. The life and lack of liberty for the slave community was seen as a miserable condition. However, to change that was never as important as the personal fight for liberty.

Hypocrisy. Everyone is guilty of hypocrisy. We truly believe in something and yet do not have the guts or intellect to live up to our own high standards & beliefs. At what point does our hypocrisy speak louder than our beliefs? Part of the problem lies in our narrow scope. In aiming to achieve our goals we often focus on our own selfish needs and wants to the detriment of others. That does not mean our goals are wrong...just short-sighted. In attempting to accomplish big things, we must seek the greatest good; not only for ourselves but for the community at large. Liberty is not truly liberty unless all are able to benefit from its blessings.

Racism & Economics

While the logic of the colonial economy was driving the Browns to enter into the African trade, there was little in the way of moral stricture to hold them back. At that time, in the years before the Revolution, the idea that there was something wrong with trafficking in humankind was still just a glimmer on the ethical horizon...slavery was an accepted part of everyday life in the colony, and in the life of the Browns...In Providence, slaveholding was a mark of the elite...Within the home, slaves lived out of sight, in attics or dank basements, or physically apart, in outbuildings and barns. In those churches that admitted Blacks, they were consigned to balconies where they could not be seen...Yet in the north as in the south, slavery was always characterized by the tools of the trade, the manacle and the lash, and by mutual mistrust rooted in the master's arbitrary and total sway.

Charles Rappleye, Sons of Providence: The Brown Brothers, The Slave Trade, and The American Revolution (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 56-58.

Slavery will always be one of the darkest stains upon American history. What makes it even more difficult to grasp is how a collection of people dedicated to the ideals of liberty and democracy could tolerate keeping their fellow people in human bondage. What seems to be clearly seen from this time period though is that economics drove human decision making and lifestyle choices. Slavery became acceptable because it helped support the colonial economy. Slavery was kept up because people strove to be a part of the economic elite who owned slaves. The disparity between Black & White was continued as it gave power and wealth to one side.

Today the idea of human trafficking might seem absurd and awful to most, but the reality is that it still exists in a variety of forms. It will continue to exist & be accepted as a result of people's desires for economic & cultural superiority. Cultural change struggles to adapt, just as it did in the 18th century, because people cannot fathom choosing ethics over economics. In our push for realizing our "dreams" we willingly will cast aside others in our pursuit of wealth & power. As we did with the slaves in colonial America, we will keep societal plagues "out of sight" in order to comfort our willingness to be whores to money.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The question becomes then, how do we change the tide? If even the so-called moralists (note in Rappleye's account that even churches contributed to the racism & slavery issue) refuse to make a stand, who will? We have to become uncomfortable with our thirst for wealth - if we ever hope to make a real difference in the dilemma of racism.

The Steady Course

In turbulent, dangerous times he [John Adams] had held to a remarkably steady course. He had shown that a strong defense and a desire for peace were not mutually exclusive, but compatible and greatly in the national interest. The new navy was an outstanding achievement...In his four years as President, there had been no scandal or corruption...he had managed nonetheless to cope with a divided country and a divided party, and in the end achieved a rare level of statesmanship. To his everlasting credit, at the risk of his career, reputation, and his hold on the presidency, he chose to not go to war, when that would have been highly popular and politically advantageous in the short run.

David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 566.

A steady course. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Adams was his ability to maintain that steady course despite the odds against it. In an era of strong leaders each trying to have their pull and control - Adams continued the path he believed to be right. It cost him friendships, position, and leadership clout in the young United States. However, in the end that commitment to hold steady proved to be the most honorable course of action.

I think this is the most difficult choice we must make as people. We must choose to hold strong to a path and not sway to the right or left. Often when faced with difficulty or opportunity, the tendency is move off one's position. In a desire to not seem stubborn, we often cave in on the values and beliefs we hold to be critical. In reality our problem is that of weakness. Whether a desire to please others or a push for more influence or even the want to stay in power - we sacrifice our honor by losing course. We may gain temporarily in this, but in the end have we lost our souls when we allow ourselves off the path? What sacrifices are not worth it to hold to the steady course? In other words, what temporary benefits are you willing to accept at the cost of your beliefs & honor? Adams sacrificed himself & his standing but in the end his virtue, integrity, and beliefs remained intact.

Extravagant (Un)popularity

"As Adams himself observed, he was President by three votes. Yet he appears to have taken it in stride. 'I am not ashamed,' he told Nabby, who had written to express her concern. 'If the way to do good to my country were to render myself popular, I could easily do it. But extravagant popularity is not the road to public advantage.'"
David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 471.

Outside of his personal integrity & honesty, if there is one admirable trait that seems to stick out in the life of John Adams its his ability to make decisions, lead, and preside in the positions he laid claim to without the incessant need to be popular or appease people. His Presidency would be marked by a fierce and ugly battle between the Federalists and Republicans often with Adams taking personal shots on both sides. Yet, in the midst of this turnmoil he did a remarkable job at remaining true to his own personal (if somewhat stubborn) beliefs instead of catering to one side. He might not have been the most popular but his tenacity to not be bought remains praiseworthy to this day.

What decisions do we fail to make because we do not adhere to the Adams Principle of not being prey to popularity? Another way of looking at it is - do we truly see popularity as a sign that the public is at an advantage? What might prove most popular with people could easily be the things that are to their greatest disadvantage. The truth in it all is that we must constantly seek to make the right decisions no matter how unpopular that might make us. Fame might win elections - but it certainly doesn't guarantee quality leadership.

Disobedience

In effect, the Americans had signed a separate peace with the British. They had acted in direct violation of both the French-American alliance and their specific instructions from Congress to abide by the advice of the French foreign minister. To Adams there was no conflict in what they had done. The decision to break with the orders from Congress, and thus break faith with the French, had been clear-cut, the only honorable course. Congress had left them no choice. Congress had "prostituted" its own honor by surrendering its sovereignty to the French Foreign Minister. "It is glory to have broken such infamous orders," Adams wrote in his diary. "Infamous I say, for so they will be to all posterity."

David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 283.

John Adams was a stubborn man. So stubborn to his own beliefs, liberty, and focus on America that he would not play lacquey to a group of men with their own agenda. He was certainly vilified for his stance(s) and history has not always remembered him in the fondest of light. However, I am continously impressed as I read about the account of his dealings with the French during the American Revolution. The French (along with Ben Franklin) wanted independence as long as it was convenient for them. Therefore, all of their "help" was given or held back based completely on their own selfish desires. Adams had the guts to stand up against that - and held his ground even in the face of being disapproved & ridiculed.

Sometimes disobedience is the the absolute right move to make. The difficulty becomes deciding when one must obey & when one must forge their own path. In choosing to disregard orders, a person will put themselves in the line of fire & have to explain their actions. Even in doing so, a person can face punishment and the smearing of their character. However, time has a way of bringing honor to one's choice if it was made correctly. Congress was weak - Adams was right. His stubborn patriotism may not have been popular with everyone, but it was what his country needed. What decisions are you being asked to make today that you believe are wrong? The key is being able to defend your actions. Disobedience will always cost you - and you must be able to give an answer for the choices that you make. Be careful in choosing to disobey - because the cost is high if you are in the wrong.

The Guilt of Silence

"Though no one transcribed the speech, Dickinson's [John Dickinson] extensive notes would survive. He knew how unpopular he had become, Dickinson began. He knew that by standing firm, as a matter of principle, he was almost certainly ending his career. 'My conduct this day, I expect, will give the finishing blow to my once great...and now too diminished popularity...But thinking as I do on the subject of debate, silence would be guilt.'"

David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 126.

John Dickinson chose the unpopular route in the Continental Congressional debate. With strong support from nearly everyone - including the people they represented - the delegates were pushing full steam towards declaring their independence. Dickinson firmly believed that they should take a different route - and stood by his conviction. In the face of what appeared to be certain political death, he chose to speak for what he believed in. Silence, or not speaking up on his beliefs, was guilt. The death of his career was worth the ability to speak his mind.

This is a difficult principle to learn. How often do we choose to remain silent and not express our will or beliefs simply to save face? How firm are we in our beliefs...willing to risk our jobs, careers, and public standing? Despite the unpopularity of his stance, Dickinson was well remembered for taking it and speaking well on what he believed in. The fallout would have been far worse had he simply stayed silent. As we proceed forward we must stand firmly in our convictions and trust that even if history proves us wrong - we will at least avoid the guilt of not speaking up at all.

All the Difference

...When Billy Tudor was admitted to the bar three years later, Adams took the time to write to Tudor's wealthy father to praise the young man for his clear head and honest heart, but also to prod the father into giving his son some help getting started in his practice. Adams had seen too often the ill effect of fathers who ignored their sons when a little help could have made all the difference.

David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 63.

As I transition from studying Thomas Edison to studying John Adams, one of the first traits that pops out to me is the relationship both men had with their families. Edison always seemed too busy for his family, whereas Adams seemed dedicated and infatuated with his. Edison's family had to trust & assume he loved them - Adams' family knew he did. Both of them were involved in time consuming professions (invention/business v. law/politics) and both had to travel. Yet it seemed that Edison was more concerned with how many hours he worked while Adams took the time to write letters and connect with his family. Both men were seen as a success in their lives - yet already I feel more compassion & connection with Adams.

"A little help could have made all the difference." Kids need their dad. Wives need their husband. Families need the leadership of a man. At some point, I must judge a person's contribution not on how much they poured themselves into their work & industry - but how much they cared for those most dependent upon them. As I jump into McCullough's excellent piece on Adams, I am constantly refreshed by a man who loved what he did less than he loved his family. In the end, character matters as much as contribution; and a large part of the evaluation of character comes in the context one's family life.

The Power of Fame

During the recent vacation, the two men [Henry Ford & Thomas Edison] happened to talk about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. Ford recalled Edison's remark that the damage it caused was incurable. Would Edison be kind enough to write a letter that explained the nautre of the harm and why it was irreversible? With Edison's permission, Ford planned to used the letter in his antismoking campaign among workers. In asking Edison to serve as a quotable authority on the subject, Ford reveals his understanding of how celebrity - his, Edison's, anybody's - confers, in the eyes of the not-famous, expertise on all manner of subjects. Edison could speak about the deleterious effects of smoking not because of a background in respiratory disease or epidemiology, but because he was Edison.

Randall Stross, The Wizard of Menlo Park (New York: Crown Publishers, 2007), 239.

What is it about the famous that entices so many of us regular people? Why do we follow their lives, study their habits, get offended by their downfalls, and trust their opinions? What makes them so important that we would alter ourselves based upon what we learn from them? Thomas Edison was one of the first modern-age celebrities, and because of this, he was able to give opinions and ideas that the public latched onto simply because they came from Edison. His name literally carried him for most of his life after his big inventions gave way to his poor business decisions. Despite heading nowhere - his name & fame kept him on top of the world. People did not care if he kept making poor choices, they were simply attached to the idea of Edison himself.

What if instead of being infatuated with the 'rich & famous' - we simply learned a lesson about influence and its power? What could I do with the influence I currently have in my life? What battles could I fight, what decisions could I make, and what fears could I cast aside if I simply used my influence? What if the best thing I have to offer is simply my name? I am not trying to imply that I am someone famous or worthy of status...but the idea remains that in my circle of influence, my name might be my most powerful weapon. The key then becomes using it for the betterment of those around me.

The Weight of Expectation

"The grander the scale of Edison's ambitions, and the greater the skepticism that he had had to overcome, the happier he had been. Once the electric light had been introduced, however, he found himself in a difficult position. How could he possibly sustain the pace of accomplishments of the previous five years? He could not shrug off the expectation that the Wizard of Menlo Park could accomplish anything. He was thirty-five years old, and the rest of his long life was devoted to attempts to make the inspiration that brought the phonograph and the electric life return."

Randall Stross, The Wizard of Menlo Park (New York: Crown Publishers, 2007), 139.

I wonder if Michael Phelps feels like Thomas Edison did. How does Phelps repeat what he did in China two years ago? 8 gold medals. I wonder if he thinks about his performance in a similar fashion to Edison's thoughts about life after the phonograph & electric light. London might bring home more medals - but there is no way he can conjure up what he did @ Beijing. Edison went on to do more after the age of 35, but none of it ever compared to the magnitude of those moments after the electric light.

Where does that leave the rest of us? We might never attain the fame or prestige that Edison or Phelps have - but we certainly each have goals and dreams. When we accomplish those dreams, where do we go after that? All my life I have wanted to "fill in the blank"...when that happens, what's next? I think the answer lies in what Mr. Stross called "attempts to make the inspiration return." We keep trying. We keep pushing. We keep innovating. We keep dreaming. Once the hill has been conquered - find a new hill to climb. The glory might never equal that of your first accomplished dream - but it is the continued push forward that inspires as much as the original accomplishments. Never let fear of increased expectation keep you from moving forward.

Diversification

"If you have five lines of business, any two of them will carry you through a bad period; but if you have only one or two kinds and they both go bad, then you are in the soup."

-Thomas A. Edison-

In business, one seeks diversification in order to built profit margin by diving into new product development and reaching out to different markets. In investments, one seeks diversification in order to spread investments to a wider range in order to prevent the damage of flucuation in the market. Either way, diversification is a simple safety net. It is protection against the potentials that risk always bring. As Edison developed products and added to the Edison name - multiple companies sprang up which covered the idea of diversification. In this manner, Edison protected himself and the companies against the damage that came when a product or market did not respond in the way they thought it might.

In light of this, I wonder how I do with diversification in my own life. How many different options have I properly explored and developed in order to provide myself with a safety net against the risks of job loss, income depletion, or the simple need to move in a different & new direction? Sometimes I think we become so fixated on becoming the best "..." that we begin to lose sight of how poorly developed we are as people. This is not a knock on specialists - as they certainly hold their purpose [i.e. I want a surgeon operating on me - not a family practice doctor]. However, how much more value do we add to ourselves when we allow ourselves to branch out and develop different parts, attributes, and skills. In other words: what is my value IF I were to ask for evaluations outside of my current occupation and set of duties. If the answer is low - then I am left, as Mr. Edison said, "in the soup."