September 26, 2007
Leadership in America: The Dilemma
James Leach
Former Member U.S. House of Representatives,
Now at Woodrow Wilson School
Minutes of the Second Meeting of the 66th Year
President Giordmaine convened the second meeting of the 66th year at the Friend Center at 10:15 AM. The room was full – about 120 persons in attendance. George Folkers led the invocation. The minutes of the previous meeting were read by John Fredericks. Robert Thompson introduced his visitor, Edmund Erde, and Ernest Schlieben introduced his relative, Paul Schlieben. The President announced that Donald Spence had died.
Charles Stenard announced first that four members had achieved emeritus status:
Colin Henry
William Brown
Ray Stratmeyer
William Summerscales
Second, he presented the slate of proposed new members, information about whom had been distributed the previous week. They are:
van Endre Becker
Donald Harold Carver
John Stephen Chamberlain
Charles Warner Daves
Nathaniel Harrison Hartshorne
Robert William Hopkins II
Landon Young Jones
Norman Steve Katz
Marc Alden Klaben
Leonard Franklyn Schwartz
Janet Wolinetz
All were elected to membership by acclamation.
Joseph Bolster introduced the speaker, the Hon. James A. Leach with a copious account of his honors, his positions and his works that would exceed the limits of this report. Mr. Leach is presently John L. Weinberg Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, following a distinguished 30 year career in Congress as a moderate Republican leader, especially in the fields of banking and finance. He is also a Princeton alumnus, recruited years ago by Mr. Bolster among other influences.
Mr. Leach’s subject was Leadership in America: the Dilemma. The United States leads the world in many ways, but politics is not one of them. The rest of the world blames this on our leadership not on our society, but it is deeply rooted in domestic politics. There are 380 safe seats in the House of Representatives, whose holders, left or right, are pressed to strengthen their base rather than engage in pragmatic negotiation to solve problems. The primary election process strengthens this tendency. To this add moral issues such as abortion (right) and welfare (left), and massive conflicting interests with lobbying money, and the dilemma deepens. In the economic and political power struggle, it is the center that gets left out. Don’t be surprised to see a strong third party movement, perhaps around a person like Michael Bloomberg, in the 2008 election. Already a mock election on the internet is being organized with wide open candidacies.
Especially in international politics the sin of pride complicates the sin of greed. Greed is pragmatic; interests can be calculated and compromised. Pride complicates the equation with issues of honor and inability to admit defeat. It was so in Vietnam; it is so today in Iraq. It could lead us, under the power given to the President under the War Powers Act, to military intervention in Iran despite Congress and political wisdom.
Is there, then, any good news? The speaker mentioned two. Thanks to State Department willingness to talk to our enemies, there may be nuclear agreement with North Korea. And there are faint hopes of peace between Israel and Palestine that was almost achieved in the last days of the Clinton administration.
One question from the audience allowed the speaker to drop a bombshell before he left. “What would you do, if you were President now, about Iraq?” There are no good options, he replied. But the least bad is to withdraw all military forces within six to eight months. We must cease to be an occupying power. There would be violence and disorder. But we then could seek, with other nations, diplomatic ways to deal with the situation.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles C. West
Charles Stenard announced first that four members had achieved emeritus status:
Colin Henry
William Brown
Ray Stratmeyer
William Summerscales
Second, he presented the slate of proposed new members, information about whom had been distributed the previous week. They are:
van Endre Becker
Donald Harold Carver
John Stephen Chamberlain
Charles Warner Daves
Nathaniel Harrison Hartshorne
Robert William Hopkins II
Landon Young Jones
Norman Steve Katz
Marc Alden Klaben
Leonard Franklyn Schwartz
Janet Wolinetz
All were elected to membership by acclamation.
Joseph Bolster introduced the speaker, the Hon. James A. Leach with a copious account of his honors, his positions and his works that would exceed the limits of this report. Mr. Leach is presently John L. Weinberg Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, following a distinguished 30 year career in Congress as a moderate Republican leader, especially in the fields of banking and finance. He is also a Princeton alumnus, recruited years ago by Mr. Bolster among other influences.
Mr. Leach’s subject was Leadership in America: the Dilemma. The United States leads the world in many ways, but politics is not one of them. The rest of the world blames this on our leadership not on our society, but it is deeply rooted in domestic politics. There are 380 safe seats in the House of Representatives, whose holders, left or right, are pressed to strengthen their base rather than engage in pragmatic negotiation to solve problems. The primary election process strengthens this tendency. To this add moral issues such as abortion (right) and welfare (left), and massive conflicting interests with lobbying money, and the dilemma deepens. In the economic and political power struggle, it is the center that gets left out. Don’t be surprised to see a strong third party movement, perhaps around a person like Michael Bloomberg, in the 2008 election. Already a mock election on the internet is being organized with wide open candidacies.
Especially in international politics the sin of pride complicates the sin of greed. Greed is pragmatic; interests can be calculated and compromised. Pride complicates the equation with issues of honor and inability to admit defeat. It was so in Vietnam; it is so today in Iraq. It could lead us, under the power given to the President under the War Powers Act, to military intervention in Iran despite Congress and political wisdom.
Is there, then, any good news? The speaker mentioned two. Thanks to State Department willingness to talk to our enemies, there may be nuclear agreement with North Korea. And there are faint hopes of peace between Israel and Palestine that was almost achieved in the last days of the Clinton administration.
One question from the audience allowed the speaker to drop a bombshell before he left. “What would you do, if you were President now, about Iraq?” There are no good options, he replied. But the least bad is to withdraw all military forces within six to eight months. We must cease to be an occupying power. There would be violence and disorder. But we then could seek, with other nations, diplomatic ways to deal with the situation.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles C. West