Bobby Kennedy – Chris Matthews

22-7-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I would like to tell you about another book while giving you some personal context as to why this one.

When I was a teenager growing up in Paris in the 1970s, I had a natural attraction for that country far away that I only knew through the movies and made me dream: America. Nothing represented this vague but powerful American dream as the Kennedys, that Boston political dynasty of whom we knew only the beautiful aspects in an age of other media. I like to think that my first memory as a child, even if dreadful, was that of JFK’s assassination in Dallas when I was three years old in the middle of a dinner with my parents and friends, though perhaps I crafted that memory to fit my later bond. When I was 20, my first trip to America was to Harvard so I could improve my deplorable English language skills, a place I am sure I primarily selected for its link to JFK and RFK. The brothers had a knack to enthuse with their one liner like “Don’t ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” or “I dream things that never were …and say why not” reflecting nobility and leadership by example befitting that American aristocracy and limits constantly pushed further embodying what America should be for me.

In the 50th anniversary of the Los Angeles assassination of RFK, which marked many, cross-generation, as America at the time was going deeper into Vietnam and through a soft civil war of its own, I would like to recommend you to read “Bobby Kennedy – A Raging Sprit” from Chris Matthews, the well-known MSNBC “Hardball” presenter and Kennedy biographer. CM wrote this book to “commemorate” at this juncture but also, unsurprisingly, “in the hope that our country can find its way back to the patriotic unity he (RFK) championed”. The fact that I was also in Boston and Cambridge, MA in July is of course not foreign to my wanting to remember and discover.

One of the nice features of the book, that reads very well, is CM reminiscing about his parents and himself about the era, watching the various Kennedy developments that he narrates in his book. His Catholic Irish American roots were also another element of closeness with the Kennedy saga at the time and help us understand the historical stint of “discrimination”, still floating at election time, and the impact of Al Smith’s 1928 defeat in the Irish American psyche. He was also part of the “Movement” generation in the late sixties, expecting to go to Vietnam after his draft deferment, though ending up in Africa for the earlier JFK-created Peace Corps, then working as an aide in Washington, eventually for Tip O’Neil, the veteran Democratic legislator from Boston, before joining the media world where we have known him over the years. While most of us will know about RFK as Attorney General in JFK’s team, the book unusually sheds light on his early years, his role in the McCarthy “red” hunt and the years after Dallas, – making appear as less of a liberal than we remember – while providing insights on the particular Kennedy family dynamics.

Going back to CM’s appellation, “Bobby” was fourth generation Irish-American from Boston, the fifth child and third son of his large family led by patriarch Joe Sr (Joseph P. Kennedy) who had married Rose, the daughter of a former Boston Mayor, John “Fitz Honey” Fitzpatrick. Joe Sr had gone to Harvard, class of 1912, establishing the family as a prominent one (he was in his own words, the youngest President of an American bank at age 25) though still not included in the Boston elite world run by the WASP establishment of the Cabots, Lodges and Lowells, due to his Irish “off the boat” heritage. This Irish origin would have a big impact on Bobby, who felt it the most in his family generation, feeling vividly the meaning of discrimination (in the late 19th century, shops would have job offers in Boston with “Irish need not apply”) and would lead the family to migrate down to Bronxville in the vicinity of Manhattan for 12 years to more fully benefit from their status in society. Bobby went to many schools, unlike his brothers Joe Jr and Jack (JFK) who stuck with Choate, the Wallingford, CT-based elite boarding school. He suffered most from a lack of love and support from his father who much preferred Joe Sr as the future family leader, being the eldest son, and Jack also as the two were seen as tougher individuals than Bobby, who would look for approval from him all his life. Unlike his father, Bobby was also interested in helping the “forgotten” (we’d say the left-outs today), be they from the black minority (as seen later in the civil rights fight), white miners from the Appalachians or farmers from Kansas. He saw it as the duty from the members of his privileged class to help the less privileged ones and not squander their wealth on futile matters. While his father and then Jack were the two most important family figures for him, Bobby could not manage to be close to the latter much due to the eight year age gap and the fact that Jack and Joe Sr were away at boarding school nine months of the year, prompting his mother Rose to make up for the neglect displayed by his father. Bobby found in his Catholic faith, the strongest in his family, the moral rectitude that guided him all his life and also defined some of his key, highly principled, political fights, like that against Communism as the Cold War took hold (that also explained his role with Joe McCarthy and his famed subcommittee) in later years.

When young, Bobby, like the whole family, followed the steps of his father’s career, the latter that was now heavily influenced by politics. Joe Sr who backed Republican Hoover in the 1928 elections against his roots and historical party affiliations, went back to the Dems backing FDR as the safest choice to “preserve my own interests” in 1932 during the financial crisis of the times. As a close ally of FDR and while he did not get his rewards quickly, he was nonetheless appointed as the first Chairman of the new SEC in 1934 (the thinking being that as one of those responsible for the crash, he would be able to know how to prevent the next one), then Chairman of the U.S. Maritime Commission in 1937 and in the late thirties, while aiming for Secretary of the Treasury which FDR rejected, he finally obtained, after much pressuring of the President, the Ambassadorship in London, taking the whole family with him across the pond. This post defined Joe Sr in inglorious terms and ended any hope he would have of a subsequent senior political career, having a very adverse impact on the whole family and deeply wounding young Bobby. As the war was looming, Joe Sr became a lead Appeaser (more Chamberlain than Chamberlain) in relation to the Nazi territorial demands at a time when America was officially neutral. He was recalled by FDR after two years, becoming then de facto a voice for America First, close to famed (Transatlantic!) flyer Charles Lindbergh, and against any U.S. intervention in the war, the latter that became unavoidable after the December 1941 surprise Japanese attack on the Pearl Harbor U.S. Navy base and Pacific Fleet. Both Joe Jr and Jack went to war as officers, Joe as a bomber pilot, Jack first in Army intelligence in DC, then in the U.S. Navy in the Pacific theater where his team rescuing exploits with PT 109 became legend and eventually paved the way for what was not thought yet as a political career. Joe Jr was the one destined for politics, with Joe Sr preparing the grounds, though the former was consumed with family redemption and flew mission well beyond his quota, turning down leaves, to meet death over France during a very perilous mission targeted at a Normandy V2 missile base. Jack then became the anointed Kennedy to lead the family to an even greater future. Bobby, who had started college at Harvard, wanted to fight but was too young and was sent to Officer Training in DC on the recommendation of Jack who thought him too young and unprepared to join the fight, something that Joe Sr engineered, also to keep him away, against any of his son’s expected urges, from the battlefield. WWII ended in Europe and then in Asia before Bobby could fight which marked him deeply, feeling like a failure, making him getting released from officer school following a direct approach to Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, joining in early 1946. Being his usual bold, Bobby enlisted as a regular seaman (I wonder about Dad’s reaction back in Hyannis Port), joining the new U.S. Navy destroyer named after his lost eldest sibling: USS Joseph Kennedy Sr. While serving he wrote his best friend about his Southern shipmates that ” possessed a lot of something a lot of guys at Harvard lacked” (writing to his parents in a more diplomatic that he was “certainly meeting people who had a different outlook and interests in life”), reminding some of us who did our military service of similar, useful feelings. Back at Harvard, Bobby went straight to his junior (third) year and seemed to focus on football, an unlikely activity for someone of his frame where he mixed with “real guys” who were at Harvard primarily due to their football prowess (including Ken O’Donnell, another hard-nosed Irish American who would end up going on to work with JFK at the White House, leading the Irish pack while Ted Sorensen led the “Intellectuals”) and were from the wrong side of the tracks but all veterans. This experience, which was an integration process for him and a way to get the fatherly respect he craved (he would never surrendered on the field, always getting back up), cemented his interest in American society as a whole, well beyond his socially-secluded Beacon Hill and Hyannis Port, leading to his future profile as a politician.

Upon graduation, Bobby went on to graduate school, not at Harvard, as he rejected the family tradition (even if none had gone to graduate school), but at UVA (University of Virginia) Law School in Charlottesville. Upon graduation and while marrying old relationship Ethel (having first dated her sister long ago), he went on to join the Department of Justice, an association that would stick, to work on a major fraud case. In the meantime, his brother Jack, who had won a Boston seat (where Harvard is also located, but full of working class voters) in Congress on the back of good looks, charm, family money and a great war record was in Washington with many freshmen veterans, like Californian Republican Richard Nixon (with whom he shared a seat on the Housing, Education & Labor Committee and already engaged in a debate in the Spring of ’47 on the Soviet Union like in a prelude of the 1960 presidential race). While he was suffering from then a severe case of Addison’s disease (he was given the last rites three times before the White House), Jack was fulfilling his father’s family master plan, which he naturally liked very much, with all siblings being unwittingly shadowed by his successes. In 1952, Jack decided to run for the Massachusetts Senate seat held by an older war veteran who had relinquished briefly his seat to fight: Henry Cabot Lodge, a Boston Brahmin who was running for reelection (interestingly both their grandfathers had fought for the same Massachusetts Senate seat in 1916 with the WASP winning). As the campaign was faltering, in part as its manager could not handle Joe Sr and his desire to be “involved”, Ken O’Donnell, previously introduced to Jack by Bobby, planted the seeds of the idea that the latter should help the former in managing the campaign. At that time, Jack did not really follow what Bobby was doing and vice versa, while Bobby was keen on crusading against fraudsters. In the end, family ties prevailed and Bobby, initially grudgingly, got involved in the world of politics, also mutating into what people described as a “hard-driving, take-no-excuses street fighter”, the man who was doing the bad things for Jack, sheltering the candidate in the process. This first step into the political arena, crowned by a hard fought victory for Jack (given Lodge’s longstanding representation and wide popularity, also a a veteran who unusually had relinquish his seat to fight), changed Bobby while enabling him to find a path to fight to redress the wrongs he perceived in society.

In spite of his father’s pressure, Bobby, having had a taste of it, did not want to enter the political arena as feeling neither interest in public speaking nor backslapping and despising opportunists and self servers (one of whom being Lyndon Johnson, Senate minority leader and Jack’s ever nemesis, though in his case daily due to the fact that a younger LBJ was present in the Oval Office when FDR sacked Joe Sr, making fun of the event with his own network, something Bobby could never manage to forget). Thoughts of Bobby in the Governor’s mansion in Boston for 1954 were equally dismissed. Bobby just “didn’t like politics”.

In February 1950, Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy, a close friend of the Kennedy family as part of the Catholic Irish-American clan, started his hunt to unearth Communist sympathisers in the wake of the Alger Hiss “scandal”, denouncing on the way “the most treacherous…those bright young men born with silver spoons in their mouths…”. Of relevance to Bobby, who had developed some hatred of FDR’s late foreign policy leadership and whom he saw as responsible for gifting Central Europe to Stalin (Why did we fight the war?), McCarthy was structuring his crusade in a fight between communist atheism and Christianity, something that was bound to resonate deeply and did. Then the Korean War erupted when the north sent 90,000 troops down South that year and seized Seoul, prompting UN resolutions and the dispatch of Douglas McArhur and American troops only five years after WWII, directly making the case for hunting the “Reds” at home more vivid. On the back of a Republican sweep, Joe McCarthy became head of the Committee of Government Operations and thus its Permanent Sub-Committee on Investigations that could investigate anything it wanted, including whether there were spies and traitors in the midst of the U.S. government. Bobby had much respect for McCarthy, which was mutual, also due to clan-like Catholic Irish American-based family ties and as the latter was close to Joe Sr and had indeed dated sisters Eunice and Pam in the past (on Eunice’s later wedding day, he sent an engraved gift stating “From the one who lost out”). Seventeen years his junior, Bobby was enthused about working for one of his father’s friends while fighting the good, black and white, anti- communist fight. While he was angling to becoming counsel to the sub-committee, the job went to contemporary Roy Cohn, a Columbia Law whiz kid and son of a judge, who became McCarthy’s infamous enforcer and whom Bobby, who ended up being a mere assistant to the Committee’s general counsel, never liked personally, also due to his expeditive investigation and interviewing methods with suspects literally dragged down in front of the sub-commmitee with little regards for damages to careers and lives regardless of any proof of actual guilt. Bobby kept on working with McCarthy out of respect and belief in the mission but also as he felt that the latter was also the subject of bigotry and early roots on the wrong side of the tracks, features he felt vividly about. Bobby nevertheless ended up resigning in late 1953 as he could not go on with the subcommittee’s methods which he felt were not reflecting American values even if he felt that the purpose of its fight was noble and necessary.

Bobby then went on to work for the former President Hoover Commission to promote the efficiency and economy of the Federal Government of which Joe Sr. was a member and likely helped get him a role with. He was quickly back on the McCarthy Commission as it was decided that counsels should originate from both main parties and not just represent at the time the Republicans. Bobby, who felt he could play a role fostering more fairness in its methods, then became the Democratic Counsel on the subcommittee he had quit before, working closely again with McCarthy but being able to deal with Roy Cohn, at times “very physically”, from a status of equals. McCarthy went into a feud with the Army on a case related to one medical officer suspected of being a communist sympathiser that put him on a collision course with the Undersecretary of the Army Robert Stevens, whom he vowed very directly to him to destroy. Ultimately this fight was one too many with Stevens in turn releasing files about the preferred treatment Roy Cohn would have engineer in strongly pushing for his supposed “boyfriend”, a matter that was handled with all the ways of the prevailing times (the terminology “gay” would come later). The fight went on with McCarthy who was subsequently censured in December 1954 by the Senate for his methods, losing his political clout (also in the American opinion, previously having reached great poll heights), going into depression and heavy drinking, coming several times to Committee hearings drunk and finally dying of liver collapse in 1955. Of note, the colourful Wisconsinite at the time of his demise was still respected if not admired at the personal level by both Jack and Bobby, the latter who went “confidentially” to his funeral mass in DC, showing the bonds of friendship and that of the Irish clan. Jack and Bobby liked the “tumult” in the man and his rebellious spirit that led him, finally, too far. (As an aside, Roy Cohn went on to work eventually with and for DT as his personal lawyer – pre- Michael Cohen – in the 1980s though it can only be a “fun fact”).

Joe Sr. now wanted Jack to go the next steps, offering in 1955 to LBJ to fund his run for the Presidency in 1956 against an Ike reelection as long as Jack was on the ticket, an idea that LBJ dismissed outright. Instead Jack went on with his idea to be on the ticket with Adlai Stevenson who would have another go at the top job though in the end chose to let the Convention select the VP. In the end, five men competed for the VP slot, with Jack initially ending up second behind Estes Kefauver, a Senator who had gained national fame in his televised hearings against organised crime in 1950 and would ultimately secure the nomination against a late-coming anti-Catholic drive that was fatal to Jack in the primaries. Bobby ended up campaigning for Adlai Stevenson whom he thought had great qualities at the beginning but could not decide anything during the campaign, not relating to his audience like with coal miners in West Virginia where “he was taking above the heads of people”. In the end, Bobby voted for the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket so despondent he had become, preferring to stick once again to values he though they would best defend. Late in 1956, Joe Sr. and Jack agreed that 1960 would be Jack’s time and that Bobby, as his top enforcer, would be his campaign manager. In the meantime, Bobby went on to work as Counsel on the Senate’s Rackets Committee where he went against the Teamsters, whom sister Pam, thought was another word for mafia, such the reputation of the labor union organisation had been well established in the minds. Bobby’s targets were David Beck, the Teamsters President and Jimmy Hoffa, the man who was seen as the future of the Teamsters and ran it all. Hoffa was subsequently entrapped by a sting operation where money was given to a Government informant in exchange for intelligence on the government plans and Hoffa was indicted, leading to a criminal trial in 1957. He got off against all odds as the jury was swayed by a testimony (apparently indirectly bought by the Teamsters) from boxing champion Joe Louis who vouched for Hoffa and the fact that the case was based on what was successfully demonstrated reasonable doubt, a verdict that hit Bobby who could not accept such an escape from a just punishment in his black and white world world (making the defense lawyer remind him that the white hats don’t always win). Bobby went on after Hoffa, whose internal status had grown with his court win, and while “getting” David Beck, could not secure a conviction against Hoffa with the two actively duelling very directly during the hearings, this for three years running (Hoffa would be convicted during two trials in 1964, sent to jail in 1967 and then physically (being) “vanished” in 1975, and declared officially dead in 1982. Good movie with Jack Nicholson, “Hoffa” in 1992).

As the 1960 presidential race was profiling itself, Bobby went to LBJ, the two being natural enemies by then albeit from the same party, to ensure that LBJ would not run against Jack, would do nothing against his run and would not support another Democratic candidate. While LBJ agreed to all three points for tactical reasons, he was mulling supporting Adlai Stevenson for a third run, the latter which fizzled out. His lieutenants, including John Connally, then Governor of Texas, started to make statements about Jack’s Addison disease and the risk associated with a President affected with it, a subject that was addressed by the Kennedy camp and did not stay in the news long. As the LBJ support had vanished, Jack was not surprised to see him throwing his Stetson in the ring. Jack would eventually win the nomination, overcoming the Al Smith Catholic syndrome after having clinched states like Protestant Wisconsin in the primaries. Thinking about his ticket, he thought LBJ could bring in the South and balance his own Northeastern patrician profile even if his charm and war record would help nationally. Bobby was adamant for Jack not to chose LBJ due to his poor relations with organised labor and his own distaste for the Texan but in the Jack prevailed in one of the most difficult issue to manage among brothers. JFK-LBJ would face Richard Nixon-Henry Cabot Lodge, the latter, also a ticket balancing act, having lost his Senate seat to Jack eight years earlier. There were a few debates, including the one where Nixon “sweated” too much in a new age of television and while Ike started to make rousing speeches supporting Nixon, his VP, it was too late. However the result was very much closer than anticipated by the Kennedy camp with Jack getting 34,108,157 votes against Nixon’s 34,108,157 though with no electoral college surprises like in 2016, prompting Jack to think that the Catholic and Irish roots might have not totally disappear as factors for many voters. Bobby was seen as a major driver of victory when Jack offered him a copy “The Enemy Within” that he’d written with the ironical inscription “For Bobby – The Brother Within – who made the easy difficult”…while Jackie added “To Booby – who made the impossible possible and change our lives”. Bobby went to become Attorney General, which was not an easy call, given the nepotism issue (see today, knowing that 1961 was even worse for such a case), but Jack was adamant about having Bobby by his side and (unlike in the 2017 case) he had shown a clear knack for the top DoJ role in his good fights against the teamsters and assorted mafias, while preserving the rule and spirit of the law.

JFK dealt with two major topics during his presidencies (Cuba – bay of Pigs and nuclear standoff – and the Soviet Union – Sputnik, Berlin) and two nascent matters which LBJ would be involved with (Civil rights fight and the Vietnam War escalation). We all know those key moments that showed JFK flat-footed by his intelligence team (Bay of Pigs), showed extreme leadership (Cuban missiles crisis and its nuclear standoff), the New Frontier and “the man to be on the moon” (post-Sputnik) and Berlin (its wall and “Ich bin ein Berliner”). In all these major events, Bobby was close to his brother, assisting him in the decision-making, also true to his belief that cabinet members should contribute well beyond their sphere of competence, getting David Halberstam to write his famed 1972 “The Best and the Brightest” (also showing they can make mistakes, this with the ease of the rearview mirror, like for Vietnam) and the mythical spirit of Camelot as was described the JFK White House. In mid-1963, the Catholic Diem brothers, ruling South Vietnam since 1955 and a 90% Buddhist population, were slaughtered in a coup with the rise of a military leadership taking over with the North showing increasing plans to reunify the country by force . JFK would not have the time (literally) to deal with this development, which the DC establishment, remembering Korea, wanted to stop by any means, including military. In the meantime, Dr. King was in the news to champion the nascent civil right movements which would later see him dealing closely with Bobby, the latter who was increasingly involved in that fight as Attorney General (exemplified by the well known case of the enrolment of James Meredith into the University of Mississippi, Ol’ Miss, triggering a violent clash between U.S. Marshals and then White Supremacists but winning the day – or actually the night then). The Dallas assassination on 23 November 1963 was a terrible shock to Bobby already a “brooder who carried the agony of the world” by nature, who lost a brother but also a raison d’être so much his life had been focused on making things happen for Jack. He eventually would leave the White House, not feeling close to LBJ, its new occupant, in spite of their deep-seated, mutual hostility having been kept in check for public affairs reasons. One event of the first year of Jack’s Presidency that marked both brothers was the stroke of Joe Sr that incapacitated him fully. At this stage and while they rushed back to Hyannis Port, there is a feeling that Joe Sr., post 1960 election victory, had stopped being a major factor in the evolution of the lives of both Jack and Bobby, who had reached a stage where their omnipresent father and Deus ex-machina could no longer dictate, least influence the course of their own future. The stroke just confirmed a gradual vanishment in the sunset, with the brothers being now focused on running the Western world.

While he was not a natural politician, not wanting to play the game and time and time again putting principles ahead of politics and partisanship, he nevertheless decided to go for the junior New York Senate Democratic seat in 1964, knowing he would come in as a carpetbagger and admitting it in meetings. Funnily at the time, younger brother Ted was the senior senator of Massachusetts, having taken the seat from Jack, who had won it in 1952. Bobby was a Democrat in the Senate though not part of its liberal faction, especially on foreign policy matters, while he was increasingly very progressive on domestic affairs going even more deeply in the defense of downtrodden Americans he kept calling the forgotten, be they white or blacks at the time. He was very involved in the lunch of Bedford-Styvesant rehabilitation project in Brooklyn in early 1966. It was a real challenge for him to decide whether to run for President in 1968, not that he did not want to exert retribution regarding LBJ but as Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy was taking the lead on the anti-war front, a subject that was also evolving for Bobby, an erstwhile cheerleader for full engagement, and where he finally expressed its strong opposition as a war morally wrong, focusing on principles as well as inefficiency. He felt that he had no room to get in, which changed when LBJ decided to not go for another mandate, officially preferring to focus on the conduct of the war (unofficially as McCarthy was to trounce him 2-to-1 in the Wisconsin primary, also getting fixated on Bobby’s potential run, knowing that it would create a strong following based on the Kennedy mythical aura). While getting in late in the primaries, Bobby won a series of them, being at a rallye when Dr. King, MLK, was shot dead, strengthening his resolve and being faced with a dual message on the need to unify America while enforcing law and oder in face of the race riots that ensued the assassination. His primary journey, also marked by his only defeat in liberal Oregon, culminating in the fateful victory in California and that tragic June post-election result night at the Hotel Ambassador. CM does not go into Bobby’s assassination (many books, particularly on this sad 50th anniversary, have and we remember the pictures of he fallen hero in the hotel lobby with his eyes, fully open, but not seeing anymore) as he did not go into Jack’s in Dallas, preferring focusing on their accomplishments and lives rather than the grim details of their demise.

Bobby was very different from Jack. As Arthur Schlesinger, “Intellectual-in- Residence” at the JFK White House elegantly put it: “John Kennedy was a realist brilliantly disguised as a romantic; Robert Kennedy, a romantic stubbornly disguised as a realist.” Bobby was whole and a stern fighter while Jack, still majestuous, was more at ease with what would we know today as the “swamp” and its trade offs. Bobby gradually became RFK against all odds (and maybe due to his father he needed to prove something) as he dutifully followed his older brother’s career and to a great extent managed the key parts of his political life while he was campaigning but also being the uber confident to Jack, the one giving him the unvarnished truth, as Jack wanted. After Jack died, Bobby felt it would never be fun as it once was, regardless of whether he became President while deep down he needed his own Bobby he never found in spite of close friendships like with Ken O’Donnell and others. His is a story of moral rectitude, empathy for the forgotten, upholding defining values as well as class and personal duty above any personal ambition – probably why he marked so many and his example resonates all the more in 2018 and with the American leadership we know.

His story is that of a President that never was but could have been. We will never know whether he would have been a game-changer for his times. However it’s no wonder why 50 years after the Hotel Ambassador, people write about him and the “dreams” that never came through.

Coming back to 2018, the comparison between the message of RFK, even if it was idealised by us, and that of Steve Bannon and its “Movement” set out to disrupt the forthcoming EU parliamentary election is absolutely amazing. Whilst dealing with a likely collusion in their own election, the U.S. Administration is planning in its National Security Advisor to influence elections in Europe and promote anti- European Union parties that would fulfil DT’s dream of not dealing with Europe but in the end smaller countries. I am without words and an orphan. What cannon does not get is that America is not a country, it’s a state of mind and while stealing its dream he reduces it to a mere country which will be increasingly irrelevant.

I dedicate this note to Anne, the truly amazing lady I met at Thunderbird, epitomising my American dream, and thought I was part of Camelot so Boston-preppy I was on that intro day. I would like to say more but I will stop here.

Warmest regards,

Serge


Note: As an aside, it is astounding to realise that of the eight children of Joe Sr and Rose, five died before their times and in terrible circumstances: Joe Jr., Jack and Bob but also daughters Rosemary (years later following the lobotomy she was subjected to by Joe Sr. to improve her “condition”) and Kathleen or “Kicks” who had married a British Lord who died in the war and then died in 1948 in a plane crash of her own. There is a distinct Greek tragedy feeling attached to the Kennedys, something that Jack’s son, John-John, sadly confirmed when piloting his own plane which crashed en route to a Marha’s Vineyard family wedding in June 1999, killing him, his wife and sister in law on a flight he should not have taken but, in true family tradition, wanted to beat the odds. Interestingly, Rose, their mother and grandmother, lived to reach the great age of 104, passing away in 1995. One can only think of the traumas she must have endured as a mother.


Serge Desprat- 22nd July, 2018 (Prague)

Trumpocracy – The Corruption of the American Republic- David Frum

20-7-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I wanted to tell you about David Frum’s “Trumpocracy – The Corruption of the American Republic”, as it is a well written book – probably the best of its kind – with deep insights about the ills of the Trump leadership, but also because DF, a senior editor at The Atlantic, is actually a Republican of the unquestionable conservative flavour of the intellectual W.F. Buckley kind. DF’s background thus makes for a very unusual read and his account of its voyage into the Trump Presidency all the more interesting. For those familiar with the classics, his book is an articulate study or rulership, dealing with DT’s exercise of power and neither his charming personality nor its few debatable early “results” (good and bad), and has an ancient Greek philosophical ring to it, hence its overall title. It is a study of how DT gained power, has used it and why it has not been really checked yet. I would personally see rulership, persona and style linked in the case of DT but understands that DF wanted to look at “facts” in a world where they are indeed debatable and distorted at will.

Having made the point that the period 1975-2000 marked a rise of democracy around the world and the subsequent one its decline globally, DF made the point that the U.S. were not concerned with that latter trend until the latest presidential elections and DT’s victory in 2016. Hoping back in 2015 that DT could be the wake up call that the Republican Party needed, DF decided to write a book that was published in early 2018 to dissect the inner democratic problems brought by the DT win from the ventage point of a clearly alarmed conservative, thus part of voters who would have naturally backed the Republican candidate in 2016 (The FT’s Edward Luce, father of the topic of “The Retreat of Western liberalism”, made a very useful multiple FT Weekend review of key books dealing with the matter, including DF’s right at its publication. For the sake of the originality of my note and while I thoroughly enjoyed Ed’s review, I did not go back to it when writing it, so all similarities are based on likely shared analysis).

DF’s focus is not on the fear that DT could overthrow the Constitution, but borrowing from French philosopher Montesquieu, whom the Founding Fathers studied closely, that he could paralyse governance stealthily, accumulating the subversion of norms and inciting private violence to radicalise supporters. DF stresses that DT operates not by strategy but by instincts, sniffing his opponents’ vulnerabilities with smears like “low energy”, “little” “crooked” or the famous “fake”, focusing on his discovery that Americans resent each other more than they cherish their shared democracy. DF also tells the story of those who have enabled, empowered, supported and collaborated with DT and without whom DT would be left isolated and indeed helpless. He stresses that there was already a natural, uncivil landscape ready to accept DT’s messages long before he came to power. He talks about indifference and incompetence dealing with major crises. He reminds us that some of DT’s ideas at the beginning of the campaign appeared fresh and balanced like with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) reforms, tax cuts and middle class empowerment, leading some voters, especially conservatives, to believe in a healthy wake-up call. He covers the disastrous and self-wounding impact he has had on world affairs and America’s 75 year relationship with its allies. He goes into the real resentments of many Americans, so called left-outs, who were aptly channeled and ensured a DT win while others who should have, did not vote, both segments ensuring a DT win. Finally he would like Republicans and Conservatives to be able to open a debate about DT and his impact on American democracy beyond partisan politics – and he finishes on a hopeful note, stressing the importance of civic engagement.

DF focuses on key features of his study of rulership in twelve chapters, which I will cover broadly.

In Pre-existing Conditions, DF stresses that DT did not create the environment where constitutional democracy was broken as the rules of the game had been already broken some years ago. He dates the last time when rules worked to the defeat of George HW Bush to Bill Clinton when the former graciously congratulated the latter and called for all Americans to support his winning rival as the new President. The victory of George W Bush over Al Gore in 2000 which was cemented by the Supreme Court marked the shift to a different discourse and environment in American politics. rather than bargains and compromises, all-or-nothing politics emerged as the order of the day. As DF states, DT did not create the vulnerabilities he exploited as they were waiting for him, largely built by the irresponsibilities of the elites, the arrogance of party leaders and the insularity of the wealthy, many of whom donors.

In Enablers, DF explains that DT would have been alone and could not have made it without the support of various key stakeholders such as i) a conservative entertainment propaganda complex; ii) fellow candidates for President who thought they could use him; iii) a Republican Party machine that submitted to him; iv) a donor site who funded him; v) a congressional party that protected him; vi) writers and intellectuals who invented excuses for him; and vii) millions of rank-and-file Republicans who accepted him.

In Appeasers, DF talks about Jeb Bush who was the presumptive winner with all the party apparatus behind him and the largest financial backing ever but who crated within seven weeks of launching his campaign. He goes through the early loneliness of DT and the opposition of virtually all the tenors and key donors of the Republican Party, only to find them changing their mind as DT gradually secured the nomination, rationalising their backing as DT being a better choice than Hillary Clinton, the latter that would be an “unthinkably catastrophic outcome”. Fox News that was relatively ambivalent if not hostile about Trump initially (Megyn Kelly, the then future of the network before “leaving” it post-election, becoming DT”s nemesis after her attacks centered on his treatment of women) became a stalwart supporter though would start paying this in 2017 in lower viewer ratings.

Incidentally it would appear that even key Republican leaders, all of them but Mike Pence trying his best to defuse a very embarrassing and unprecedented situation in modern American presidential history can experience second thoughts when confronted with DT’s communication at the Helsinki joint press conference and his kind handling of Russia and its leader at the end of his summit with President Putin on 16th July (to be noted on a Reuters-Ipsos poll still 71% of Republican supporters still approved of DT on this matter while 55% of all Americans disapproved).

In Plunder, DF mostly talks about corruption in the US (actually only 18th on the Transparency International’s corruption index) giving examples of cosy deals having involved Newt Gingrich and Tom Daschle, both leaders of the House at different times and from different parties. We see that DT became the first President and in fact senior “politician” to refuse to disclose his tax returns, a practice instituted by George Romney, Mitt’s father and then Governor of Michigan, in 1968. The focus is on DT and his family, including the Kushners, who hold records in spending public money to sustain their life style (each Mar-a-Lago jaunt costs at least USD 3m – the cost of the carts for security running at USD 60,000 a year, while the Kushner family ski trip to Aspen in May 2017 cost USD 300,000 to the taxpayers), making the overall spending of DT in one year equivalent of what Obama spent in eight. Nepotism in the DT age is obviously well covered by DT. It actually makes for fun reading if one can forget the significance of such behavior that DT’s supporters are either not aware of or not interested in focusing on. The subject of conflict of interest, unwitting or not, is very clear with the Trump hotel in DC having seen much increased occupancy from foreign visitors since DT’s elevation, but also DT’s business team working hard on a license for Trump Tower Moscow until January 2016 while Jared was in ultimately stopped negotiations with Chinese insurer Ambang to refinance the 666 building on Fifth avenue with its owner very much wanting to meet the President and Chinese investors being promised “investor visas” in a New Jersey property whose marketing was run by his sister. DF makes a very easy case for a very co-mingled way between public funding and private interests in the Trump family. The ethical safeguards set up by the extended Trump family are derisory according to DF, who shows an endless list of conflicts of interest which put DT as a record holder for “firsts” of what not to do for a President in many years. Last areas reviewed by DF are the sackings and delayed appointments of US attorneys, including the highly “unusual” personal DT interview of the one for the District of Columbia with potential criminal jurisdiction for his staff and himself. Lastly, nepotism, which is an art form at the current White House, goes through amazing public examples such as when Ivanka replaced her father at the G20 table in Hamburg in 2017. The conflict of interests problems experienced by Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross last week only stresses the common feature of the Trump Administration and its strange rapport with money and business interests.

In Betrayal, DF covers the meaness with which DT can denigrate or embarrass close advisers at any moment for any reason. DF gave the example of Sean Spicer, then Press Secretary and a devout Catholic, who was not put on the list to meet the Pope while others, far more junior, staff were. DF goes into DT’s habit of appointing deferential, servile individuals to work around him as key features going along with unquestionable loyalty. DT hates criticism (unsurprisingly) and expects huge amount of flattery (also unsurprisingly). He prizes fulsome tributes from his staff such as “I am privileged to be here – deeply honored – and I want to thank you for your commitment to the American workers” (SecLabour) or “It was a great honor traveling with you around the country for the last year and even a greater honour to be here serving on your cabinet” (SecTreasury) and quite a few other memorable quotes which other Presidents, notably GW Bush, for whom DF worked, would hate. DT embarrassed H.R. McMaster, the most admired soldier of his generation, by changing the script of his NATO speech in Sicily in May 2017 forcing him to live with it and defend the changes as perfectly fine and expectable. Those working for DT need to live through the betrayals of their own principles. Quoting Thomas More, DF stresses “the point where crossing a line, even an arbitrary one, means letting go without hope of ever finding yourself again”. What is the most surprising is probably the high risk that young staffers take in working with and for DT given the stigma that is going to be attached to their name and career long after their service, and which explains te relative dearth of young quality staffers at the top of the Trump Administration. Another feature commented by DF is the rise of the “Mini-Trumps” around DT, who incidentally are no band of brothers and easily turn on each other, also given the unhealthy environment at the White House. These Mini-Trumps, who show total obedience and display grotesque flattery to their leader, are exemplified by Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci, the very brief Communications Director – read Edward Luce’s Lunch with the FT, one of the most incredible pieces of the genre – or Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary: “He’s got perfect genes. He has incredible energy and he’s unbelievably healthy” to describe a President he sees as very engaged on multiple fronts all the time while actually DT is clearly known for poor work ethics, little attention span and clear problems with obesity, bad diet and a dogmatic refusal of exercise. All entering the Trump Administration for non selfish motives would sooner or later find themselves betrayed by a President who demands loyalty in its most servile form but never returns it.

In Enemies of the People, DF deals DT’s relationship with the news media which is a key focus for him. Of DT’s 770 Tweets in his six months of Presidency, attacks on the media were the largest topical segment with 85 Tweets, usually stressing FAKE NEWS. CNN, The New York Times and NBC News, but also The Washington Post (and Amazon given Jeff Bezos’s ownership) are the main targets. The attacks are focused on news media that are critical of his actions and policies and as such are not so much “his enemies” as they are those “of the American people”. DT holds the record for the most untruths based on various organisations dealing and ranking such features, the exact list of which, for the main ones, we will remember. His close team does not hesitate to threaten the press like with Kellyanne Conway DT’s favourite enforcer, tells Meet The Press’s Chuck Todd that unwelcome questions would provoke some unspecified reprisal and “a rethink of our relationship”. DT simply enjoys a world where media is reduced to “the sycophancy of Fox News & Friends” and “Hannity”. DT’s approach is to delegitimise accountability journalism by framing it as partisan. DT is unequivocal as he speaks unlike a politician, usually very directly which is perceived as clarity and frankness by supporters, which however is not the same thing as being honest. DT lies without qualm or remorse and if necessary will lie about the lie itself. As DF states, he lies blatantly to assert power over truth itself, his main objective being to feed his message to his core supporter base. DT also incites violence when addressing supporters in his rants about some of the news media, such as “I truly don’t think they like our country”, touching a key trigger point of his base, at times whipping the crowds at rallies into fevered chants like “CNN Sucks” and leading attendees to shout epithets at targeted reporters. DF finally goes into the matter of Russian-originated fake news modus operandi and infrastructure, which may have benefited DT during the campaign even if the subject of collusion is still under investigation.

In Rigged System, DF goes into some of the reasons the 2016 results were what they were, well beyond the vagaries of the Electoral College system and the 2.9 millions more votes for Clinton, most of which were “illegal votes” according to DT though he did not press the matter. The matter of illegal votes is a perennial issue in American politics and simply relates to the fact that individuals move from state to state from birth, college, jobs, marriages and that the voter registrations sometimes stay unchanged, making them able in theory to vote in several states. It looks like, whether this matter should be fixed, it would be quite unpractical and would require incredible efforts for people to vote in several states on election day, though on-line voting and mail voting may create some leeways. It is thus hard to think that elections could be swayed by a massive multiple vote conspiracy. On the other hand, one of the strange changes of the 2016 section compared with the 2012 one is for DF the massive decline in participation of African-American voters, whose ethnic group share of the vote went from 65 percent in 2012 to 58 percent in 2016, which is the steepest decline of voter participation for any ethnic group in American election history. While the absence of an Obama they would feel naturally close to and the presence of a Clinton they might not all relate to is an undeniable fact, it would seem that the surge of Republican victories at the state and local levels during the Obama period (Only seven states out of 50 were controlled by Dems in 2016) may explain the shift due to a substantial rise of changes in voting procedures, the most important since the Reconstruction post-1865. Republican states went through a change in early voting, weekend voting and online voting that had an impact on those voters, especially in minority groups, who did not control their working time as well as others or were not tech-savvy or following the rule changes. DF is then covering the targeting of those responsible for what he calls the “rigged system”, notably against ordinary, working class, Americans, pointing to the likes of financier George Soros, FED Chair Janet Yellen and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as the main “agents of global special interests robbing the working class, stripping the country of its wealth and lining the pockets of corporations and political entities” (It should be noted that The Anti-Defamation League made a quick and concerned statement about the anti-semitic undertones of DT’s attack, which in many ways was strange when knowing DT’s strong closeness to Israel, Jerusalem embassy and all, which perhaps is another example of erratic behaviour and spur of the political moment, the main objective being to send a message to his core base). DF finally deals with the investigated Russian involvement in the 2016 elections through various means of hybrid warfare as well as the rise of open display military style outfits intimidating involved citizens and voters at events like in Charlottesville in August 2017, resulting in an ISIS-style lethal car-ramming onslaught, or more simply at the voting booth in some “conceal and carry” states and locations. While condoning political violence, DT often encouraged supporters to adopt tough behaviour dealing with political opponents at rallies or law enforcement in their dealing with criminal suspects. While the American economic system might feel “rigged” against Trump supporters, the American political system of 2016 had in important ways been rigged in Trump’s favour.

In America Alone, DF starts stressing through HR MacMaster and Gary Cohn, the then national security and economic lead advisers to DT in a Wall Street Journal op- ed in May 2017 that “America first does not make America alone” as if there was a need to state it. DF then goes through the many attacks against allies South Korea or Germany, initially about their participation to defense cooperation in Korea for the former or through NATO and later trade for the latter. We then go through the decline in trust of allies’ populations in DT as opposed to Obama (like 24 percent vs. 78 percent in Japan or 28 percent vs. 84 percent in Australia). We go through the business ties of DT with both Qatar and Russia and the detailed positions of DT regrading the two countries. While we know the issues at stake with Russia, we learn how a successful visit to Saudi Arabia, empowered the UAE, Saudis and Egyptians to organise a blocus of Qatar, thinking that Washington was fine with it. Similarly a visit of DT in Warsaw where he emboldened the nationalistic government with his praise of a “safe, strong and free” Poland that led it to start attacking the independent court system and clashing with the EU. We then go back to the U.S.- EU relationship, within a NATO and later trade context, remembering the traditional U.S. approach to its allies like with GW Bush stating in 2003 “Since the end of World War II, the United States has strongly supported European unity as the best path to European peace and prosperity” on the footsteps of Bill Clinton when he had declared years early that “We recognise we will benefit more from a strong and equal partner than a weak one”. DF then covers all the demonstrations of support from DT and its representatives (the latest being the new Ambassador in Germany) in support of populist movements and developments, like with Farage In Britain or Le Pen in France or again Orban in Hungary to only name a few in a long list, of which Salvini and di Matteo in Italy are the latest members. We hear Rex Tillerson in May 2017 congratulating the “Turkish people – brave men and women – (who) stood up against coup plotters and defended their democracy” (In fairness, he probably would not make the same speech today). We then realise that DT wants only one- on-one deals with countries and not deals with the likes of the EU so as to avoid “big quagmire deals that are a disaster”. DF stresses that “DT never understood that America’s power arose not only from its own wealth and its own military force, but from its centrality to a network of friends and allies”. We go through leading examples of mismanagement when DT told Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign minister about an imminent ISIS threat and the city where the US intel partner (Israel’s Mossad) had detected the threat, resulting in a great embarrassment and potential blow if not among country leaderships but likely friendly intel organisations. DF stresses the views of both Steve Banon and Chris Caldwell who saw an alignment of DT with President Putin as being natural given the latter seen as the leader for a new form of otherwise traditional form of nationalism, this time expressed against globalism (the big battle of our time for them), thus self-determination in a way populist conservatives see VP (and DT) as progressives saw Fidel Castro in another era. In sync with that ideological rapprochement, DT, while praising Putin, has clearly casted doubt on the Russian meddling invitation by the DoJ’s Robert Mueller as well as tried to promote the cooperation with Russia in Syria. DF finally reminds us of the speech of Vaclav Havel the he addressed to a joint session of Congress after the fall of “all the Berlin Walls”, stressing how America and its constitution, 200 years later, still inspired the world and the Czechs to be citizens, lamenting (DF) that government of the United States seemed today to have made common cause with the planet’s crooks, thugs and dictators against its own ideals, while forgetting friends and allies who should pay more for their defence and not run trade surpluses. In doing so he, once again, stresses that DT has been enabled, also on the international front, by individuals who “execute his whims fro crass and cowardly reasons of their own: partisanship, ambition, greed for gain, eagerness for attention, ideological zeal, careerist conformity or malicious glee in the wreck of things that they could never have built themselves”. The only redeeming feature being for DF (and I) that they will be remembered (thus creating a gradual, welcome, dampening effect in their DT zeal driven by self preservation), like the Trump Presidency and what it revealed about the American political system, long after DT retires to the great golf in the sky, even if damages could sadly have longer lasting effects than what we would want even with him no longer around.

In Autoimmune Disorder, DF talks about the leaks at the White House that have been at all time historical high since the start of the DT era and acted as a stop to some of the most crazy policy moves of DT. Leading examples of such leaks resulted in the removal of Michael Flynn, first National Security Adviser, from office and leading to his indictment; the exposition of the blabbing of DT to Sergey Lavrov about the ISIS threat and where; of the deterrence of the lifting of sanctions to Russia. The problem with the leaks is that they exposed to adversaries, like in the case of Russia, that conversations were not secure as previously thought and that surveillance methods had overcome security set-ups – stressing a common problem often found in cybersecurity, the most recent form of warfare, albeit hybrid, that while you know you have been hacked you don’t want your attacker to know about it. By outing information via leaks and when involving adversaries, the leakers drove them to change their security measures to restore confidentiality in their communication, making your own side go back to the drawing board to yet intercept information in the future. DF then underlines how the office of the President was traditionally always staffed by committed people taking their jobs very seriously but how the Trump White House has become “a mess of careless slobs” giving us a long list of examples making the point very easily. He then goes on to stress that DT has gone on to surrender himself with top military officials in his team, partly as he wanted obedience and that these men, not being politicians, are usually selected, trained and promoted to get results, there being no wrong ways to win a battle. VP Mike Pence stressed to the 2017 graduating class of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis that they “should follow the chain of command without exception. Trust you superiors, trust your orders and you’ll serve and lead well” which had a strange flavour as key message to the future U.S. Navy leadership in terms of obeying all orders, lawful or not. As stated by DF and we know, it turned out that men like Mattis, Kelly and McMaster, all first rate military (USMC) commanders and great Americans have demonstrated an appreciation of and commitment to liberal democracy exceeding that of their commander in chief, which was very fortunate and even if the principle of civilian supremacy must remain indispensable when and if the President has revealed himself unfit for office. DF finally touches upon the key but currently fraught relationship of DT with the national security apparatus (mainly but not only DoD, CIA and NSA), notably on intelligence-related matters – see DT’s 16th June Helsinki Trump-Putin press conference and later “walking back” with “would and wouldn’t” -, a wider topic which is also related by James Clapper and Michael Hayden, two former CIA and NSA Directors in their books very recently published which should be read by those of us who are interested in the matter.

In Resentments, DF covers a few resentment groups and issues that propelled DT in the White House. Political correctness was a big resentment factor triggering DT’s exasperation, which resonated with many voters who became supporters. “PC culture” was deemed by many analysts as one the key voting issues and according to comedian B.L. Hughley “probably is why” DT got elected as “people are tired of being told what to think and say”. DF mentioned another testimony from a 21 year old San Franciscan DT voter: “I am a gay millennial woman and I voted Trump because I oppose the political correctness movement which has become a fascist ideology of silence and ignorance”. For another 28 year old from San Francisco: “He was an outsider . He spoke truth about the political correctness” (If I may say, while political correctness was very useful to enshrine societal advancements at the ground level in particular in terms of civil, minority, women, gay and gender diversity rights, the PC culture may indeed have gone too far on some topics. I personally dislike the activist approach of viewing historical events with today’s lenses and values, like campaigning to rename colleges because 200 years ago the man whose name on the college porch, while an American Vice President, happened to also have been a slave owner at the time). DT was very good at focusing on these frustrations and taking advantage of them in the voting booth. The rejection of PC- culture was often combined with other resentments like those of the young white males, particularly without any love relationship (and often no job, many of whom would still live with their parents), who felt lonely and alienated in today’s America. As it is widely assumed that the millennial elected Barack Obama, Romney beat Obama by seven percentage points in 2012 among whites under the age of 30. Among white males under the age of 30, Romney beat Obama by 13 points. A 600 per cent increase was noted in the following of white nationalist groups on online media between 2012 and 2016. In 2014, only 71 percent of men aged 18-34 were employed compared with 84 percent in 1960. In 2016, 19 percent of Americans under the age of 30 smoke marijuana, twice as many as before 2008 and the Great Recession. Hillary Clinton crystallised resentment of white men with 52 percent holding a “very unfavourable” view of her, 20 and 32 points higher than those who viewed Obama very unfavourably in 2012 and 2008 respectively. Hillary Clinton was seen “as embodying the cultural transformations of the 1960s: the liberal, feminist, working-mother spouse of the first boomer President”. To many supporters among those who needed to rationalise intellectually their support, DT was the first post- religious conservative of their lifetime, not hating gays and not caring if women have abortions, the first who talked about things that matter now, even if he drew support from the alienated, including the crackpots, extremists and also racists at a time when for the first time in American history life expectancy was declining, most steeply, among American whites, who also were leading the ethnic pack in terms of male suicides and opioid overdoses. Marriage, church attendance, civic participation also plummeted along income, by 9 percent, for white males between 1996 and 2014. DT was also sent to the White House on a multiple wave of resentment focused on alienation and loneliness that he understood how to channel.

In Believers, DF shows where DT won which is not in the wealthy locations (Clinton won the counties that produced 64 percent of the country’s wealth and even the knowledge centres of the Trump states, like the Research Triangle of North Carolina). Trump won by and large most of the poorer counties nationally. Political power quickly divorced from cultural power with business leaders leaving DT’s Advisory Council for fear for their brands following the leader’s outbursts. Big Tech denounced DT’s immigration policies. By July 2017 DT’s approval rating in the under 30 age group was at 20 percent. DT polled better among those earning USD 50,000 and USD 99,000 than with those earning above USD 100,000, “a freakish outcome for a Republican” and interestingly performed better with Latinos and blacks than Romney in 2012 while performing better with union households by any Republican since Reagan II in 1984. I recommend the book by Zita Salerno and Brad Todd “The Great Revolt” to understand better where Trump won and with whom and why.

In Hope, his aptly-named and hopeful final chapter, DF stresses the importance, as we all know, of civic engagement – in the case of one reader, contacting his school board about media literacy, calling state and local legislators on key issues and embarking (for those who need) on programs of self-education in history, politics and philosophical ideals of the Republic…This recipe by the way is very valid globally (not to sing the praises of globalism) so as to counter the excesses and ways of cheap and easy populism. DF is optimistic in spite of the dark days as he sees a rise in Americans seeking “better” news sources and getting more engaged. He focuses on lying as a way of governing, reminiscent of what the Chinese went through with Mao’s reeducation campaign, which sounds eerily current and warps minds (half of DT’s supporters accepted his claim that he in fact had won the popular vote in November 2016 though in contrast 60% of all Americans, a rising figure, now reject his views about his connections to Russia). DF goes on expanding on why there is reason for hope though stressing that “liberty is actually threatened in modern democratic state, not by diktat and violence, but by the slow, demoralising process of corruption and deceit” and that “what happens next is up to you” in what can be “your finest hour as a citizen and an American”.

I believe that it is a great, at times dense, book that needs to be read and closely digested. For my part and if I may say, I think DT does not have many beliefs in anything – He was a Democrat and then a Republican – but he is first and foremost for DT and by and large his business interests, not really having wanted or believing he would get the top job, finding himself thrown into it against all odds, as if the electoral college fluke was on him (as “Fire and Fury”‘s Michael Wolff tells us likely rightly). He clearly does not have a good handle on American and Western values, which has a key impact on his rulership, and is more about the means than the ends in politics, this being amply demonstrated by his primary focus on the message to his core base that is more aimed at reassuring and keeping their votes (“Winning” being the true end – as he never lied and much wrote about it all his life) than about any substance or their future well being. He also may be hard to follow at key times, even for his supporters, like with his latest surrealistic statements for an American President at the Helsinki summit press conference with President Putin, naturally making people wonder what they don’t know about his inner motivations and landing himself deeper into very dangerous constitutional grounds.

As a French-born Transatlantic man, I do not feel yet the “very direct” and daily impact of all the DF-narrated ills of DT’s rulership, even if their effects on the world order as we have known it for 75 years are certainly real and hurtful for all including America, so I clearly would like the sun to shine again on that “city on the hill” so we all have a great, shared weather going forward.

Warmest regards,

Serge

 

Serge Desprat – 20th July, 2108 (Plymouth, MA)

 

Bad Blood – John Carreyrou

19-7-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I wanted to depart temporarily from politics and geopolitics to address a topic that is more centred on my professional field with the unbelievable story of Theranos and its founder, Elizabeth Holmes. EH was the Steve Jobs-like black turtleneck- and slacks-clad blond girl-wonder, Stanford dropout, precocious entrepreneur extraordinaire, female role model who astounded the world of tech and finance with her Theranos start-up while in fact leading the biggest fraud in modern Silicon Valley history. She was a real poster “child” for entrepreneurial success, a genuine medical visionary, having gathered a senior team with years of tech experience and a board comprising leaders of our times. Bad Blood, written by John Carreyrou, a Wall Street Journal investigative reporter, twice Pulitzer Prize winner and the man who uncovered the EH fraud, is a very well crafted, highly enjoyable account of this unbelievable story, which saw him awarded several top prizes in journalism. Bad Blood is a story of the ambitious (and noble) ends justifying any means and a very personal obsession to succeed at all costs combined with a tyrannic and dishonest approach to management. As an aside, it would make a great movie or mini-series, which I am sure has not escaped Hollywood or Netflix.

When she grew up in DC in an upper middle class family, Elizabeth Holmes matter of factly told her family at age 9-10 that when she would grow up, she’d be a billionaire (and in fact not the President of the U.S., as the family wondered, as he would actually marry her as she would have one billion dollars). She grew up as an intensely competitive child, piling up the little Monopoly buildings on the way and making sure all of her competition was going bust (this early real estate background being puzzling…). As she became a sophomore in one of Houston’s finest high schools, she decided to focus exclusively on her studying, which ultimately led her to Stanford and starting a chemical engineering degree. When there she worked for the lab of famed Engineering Department head, Channing Robertson, assisting one of her first future Theranos employees, Shaunak Roy, who was concluding a PhD. When her father asked EH at Christmas dinner that year if she thought of pursuing a PhD programme, she responded: “No Dad, I am not interested in getting a PhD, I want to make money”. She dropped out of Stanford in 2003 at age 19, after one year, (breaking up with her freshman boyfriend, telling him she would have no time for him going forward) having decided to found Theranos and work on a revolutionary and patented while at Stanford blood-testing patch which could not only identify diseases but would cure them, something she wisely reduced to simple patch-less micro-fluidic testing so drug companies could in turn benefit from a more time- and cost-efficient means of developing their own products. Very few Silicon Valley actors and observers had run into such an ambitious individual before, indeed reminding them of the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

EH, who possessed an incredible charisma and great, unblinking-eyed, convincing powers even at a very young age, raised initial capital (USD 6 m) from leading venture capital veterans whom she had been exposed to (like Tim Draper from famed Valley DFJ, Larry Elison from Oracle and his early 70s backer, financier Donald L. Lucas, who also became Chairman of the Board and others) and family, gathering around her a first class senior team with years of experience gained at IBM, Intel and Panasonic and having Channing Robertson on the Board. The first problem arose in 2006, three years on and at an impressive valuation of USD 165m post third round, when her CFO of eight months, who kind of worked on trust, started to query the validity of Theranos’s testing methods after a trip of EH and team to Novartis in Switzerland when the pharma company became very impressed with Theranos and its main product, wanting to secure a financial arrangement to develop a project together. As the CFO, who was responsible for upbeat sales forecasts based on product and client development, was becoming increasingly worried that investors might be misled through less than above-the-board testing demonstrations, he decided to confront EH at one of their regular meetings. EH told her CFO that there had been indeed a few hick ups with testing processes thus making the team have a ready made one just to use with investors and partners so they could avoid disappointing expectations. She also promptly added that he was not a team player and that he should leave right now – and not only the room (he would disappear, other staff speculating as to why, some embezzlement story floating around in his wake).

EH went on a campaign describing the future of preventive medicine in which drugs would be specifically tailored to individual needs thanks to Theranos’s blood- monitoring technology, stating that Theranos could eliminate 100,000 American deaths a year from adverse drug reactions. She started focusing on using as little blood as possible and avoiding needles in her experiments, partly as a long-lasting phobia and what would become a company trademark. As 2006 went on, she raised another USD 9m for a second round or so-called Series B and USD 32 m from a Series C round. While EH had received no medical or scientific training, she had developed a great vision and was able to sell it. In the summer of 2007, she took her admiration for Apple and Steve Jobs a step further, hiring several of Apple’s employees to work for Theranos, especially in the design area, including Ana Arriola who became its Chief Design Architect. Ana started also to change the look of EH and her wide gray pantsuits and Christmas sweaters to the black outfit that quickly became her trademark in Silicon Valley. Meanwhile the company kept moving forward, leaving East Palo Alto of ill repute to set up shop on the right side of the tracks.

Theranos was not just a tale of fraud. Its management culture was one of tyranny, fear and dishonesty prompted by the imperative need to keep dark secrets, with staff being fired through what could be seen as an ever revolving door policy enforced by EH (and later boyfriend and Executive Chairman, Ramesh Balwani, a.k.a. Sunny, a successful Bombay-born Valley entrepreneur, 20 year+ EH’s senior who acted after 2009 as the top enforcer at Theranos with a personal focus on staff timesheets and productivity). No senior staff could stay very long at Theranos, willingly or not, the former through crisis of conscience, the latter though periodic purges. Following the CFO, the heads of engineering, chemistry, marketing, sales, design, IT as well as the general counsel and many in their teams would be fired either as they were perceived as not loyal enough or actually because they asked too many questions about the validity of the testing processes at Theranos. EH demanded absolute loyalty from staff, this feature being an overriding quality. She would have files “built” on leaving employees, insist on the strictest belt-and-braces non-disclosure agreements and would ask her IT team to control all staff communication and ensure they knew what they were doing at all time, also making sure dinner was brought on-site so they would only leave by 10 pm every day and thus worked longer hours. Early board members like Avie Tevanian, one of Steve Jobs friends since NeXT decided to leave, having greatly supported the company, after legal threats from Theranos following his incessant questioning, including with true believer Chairman Lucas of how the company really operated. EH showed a renewed intensity in developing the business asking her engineering team to work 24-7 (which was turned down by her engineering head to his latter sorrow) and making teams compete against each other, without sharing information, so she could be the only one to have the full picture. Departments were not working together, operating in tight silos officially to enhance security, with the sales team never seeing any testing validation data before they would market the product. Paranoia was running high as EH and Sunny were strong believers in that Laboratories of America and Quest Diagnostic, the leading American lab rivals, would stop at nothing to undermine Theranos, while they barely noticed it at the time. So focused on speed to market she was, she even hired a competing engineering team to ensure that progress went faster, which it did, resulting in the head of her first team and his entire staff to be asked to leave. EH slept four hours a night, popping chocolate-coated coffee beans during the day. In August 2007, she went after former and current key employees who wanted to set up a company of their own (albeit for the veterinarian segment, judged easier) under license of the company technology, pursuing them in court and showing her extreme care for the company’ proprietary information or, as it turned out, to protect the secret of the viability of Theranos to develop a reliable testing process. Finally, while not disclosing her relationship with her number two, Sunny, she displayed tone-deaf nepotism by hiring her brother, Christian, as director of product management together with three of his Duke fraternity brothers (all aptly named “The Frat Pack”), the group benefiting from access to EH and Sunny well beyond their seniority, essentially based on the key feature of total loyalty. This approach was also combined with a pervasive lack of empathy as shown when a depressed (due to his qualms with the Theranos culture) and (as such) recently demoted head of chemistry committed suicide and EH’s first reaction was to have the in house counsel to ask his widow to send back his laptop and privileged information/or made sure she destroyed them (incidentally first concealing the death from most staff and then allowing the rumour that the employee had died from a cancer relapse).

While many discussions, leading to funding agreements with Big Pharma such as Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Pfizer or J&J entailed early testing and validation projects which in the end fizzled out by lack of concrete results, EH focused on the leaders of the grocery retail sector with Walgreens and Safeway, both old world companies that needed to reboot growth. While EH was able to enter into two potential exclusive agreements with both – Walgreens for supermarkets and Safeway for drugstores – she did not let them and their consultants (especially Walgreens’ Collaborative, a consulting firm whose task initially was to vet Theranos’ testing processes) to even have a look at their lab, which was not ready for inspection as not fully developed. Unbelievably the senior management of both Walgreens (led by Dr. J, a very colourful head of innovation and true believer in EH) and Safeway (with its CEO also swayed by EH) were too enthusiastic for a new future via healthcare to risk losing the Theranos opportunity by probing too closely testing processes at Theranos and alienating EH. Walgreens had a bad case of FoMO (Fear of Missing an Opportunity) fearing that CVS would then replace them while Safeway was pressured by stock market analysts to find a fast way to grow a stagnating business. In the end both companies came up short and in the case of Safeway with USD 250m in non-existant blood testing revenues as well as USD 100 m of store redesign costs when they set up state of the art, quasi-luxury in-house clinics throughout 2012. Theranos could not show their mini-labs or lab to any parent as all of their equipment was straight from Chicago’s Abbott Laboratories, Germany’s Siemens and Italy’s DiaSorin. Trying parallel expansion routes, EH also met four star General James Mattis in 2011, now Secretary of Defense, then the Head of U.S. Central Command to explore how Theranos could assist finger pricking blood testing to help diagnosing and helping wounded soldiers in the Afghan war theatre, a concept that was immediately strongly supported by Mattis. The discussions with the military bogged down on regulatory matters in spite of EH trying to sway the course of events her way against the views of the military medical leadership and going straight back to Mattis, the latter who retired shortly thereafter, making the project vanish without much internal support (incidentally this military link was often mentioned by EH to various parties, including her leading ad agency of past Apple glory, who had a contract of USD 6m a year, and whose team thought that this small start-up, an unusual client, was funded by the Pentagon and also understood why secrecy explained they could not have access to reports supporting its scientific claims).

On 7th September, 2013, the WSJ did a front page Weekend piece on EH and Theranos right at the time of the official commercial launch of Theranos (ten years after its set-up!) with the first wellness center cum blood testing facility installed in the Walgreens store in Palo Alto as a prelude to nationwide roll-up to be started in sunny Phoenix. Both events would be artfully used to validate the product as EH was deciding to go for another, this time very meaningful, fundraise that would value the privately-held company at USD 6 bn (with some investors then participating when they had turned down the opportunity at USD 40 m). We see two founding partners of a San Francisco hedge fund being wheeled in to a meeting with EH and Sunny, in the Theranos building, going through a security team supervised by Mattis’s connection, Jim Rivera, former head of security at the Pentagon, and being escorted everywhere including to the restroom, still with some off-limit areas like the lab facilities (for some good reasons that it is not yet functional). One of the key deciding factors for investors in addition to EH’s clear visionary leadership and top salesmanship, combined with Theranos’s supposed scientific accomplishments, is the unquestionable quality of its board of directors. In recent years, EH managed to reshuffle her board, inviting 92 year old George Schultz, former secretary of state to Ronald Reagan (who concluded the September 2013 WSJ article comparing EH to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs), James Mattis following his retirement from the Army earlier that year, Henry Kissinger, former secretary of defence William Perry, former senate armed services committee chairman Sam Nunn and former navy admiral Gary Roughead. It would be hard not to be impressed with such a display of former senior officials (all fellows at the Hoover Institution at Stanford) who clearly must have done their homework on Theranos before lending their name and time as Board members in exchange for grants of stock (incidentally further validating the links of Theranos with the defense establishment). Sadly target investors were shown financial projections that were five to twelvefold higher than internal projections, something that would never cross their minds with such a great overall story, amazing leadership, prestigious board and top legal advisers, including famed David Boies, keeping watch. In February 2014, the company was valued at USD 10 bn with EH owning slightly more than half of it.

The first serious potential blow to EH and the company came from an unexpected quarter – from a young Stanford graduate recently hired named Tyler whose grandfather was…George Shultz. Tyler had grown suspicious of the quality of the mini-lab and testing processes at Theranos, had met with EH who placated him far more she would have with another employee, sending him to recheck with more senior staff. When Tyler was still not convinced, having had exchanges with the New York Health Department to double check matters, he went to his grandfather who thought EH would explain everything, which in turn was left to Sunny in an unusually less blunt but still venomous way, asking for an apology from Tyler, who in turn decided to quit. Amazingly, EH contacted George Shultz asking for Tyler to stop his vendetta “or else”, a message that was conveyed to him as he was still in the company’s parking lot by his own mother, with George still “doting” on EH, thinking he was wrong on Theranos. Meanwhile the specialist printed media were sending EH to stardom with Fortune’s article entitled “This CEO is Out for Blood” in its 12th June 2014 issue, the new valuation of the company, the ascetic and reclusive profile, and the repeated comparisons of EH to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Forbes followed suit with an article entitled “Bloody Amazing” and pronouncing EH as the youngest woman to become a self-made billionaire, being pictured in Forbes 400, the issue showing the wealthiest Americans. Other articles on EH followed with USA Today, Inc., Fast Company and Glamour with NPR, Fox Business, CNBC, CNN and CBS News offering extended coverage of the new Valley girl wonder. EH was becoming truly unassailable. She was the recipient of the Horatio Alger Award with Time Magazine naming her one of the top 100 most influential people in the world. President Obama made her a U.S. Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship and Harvard Medical School a fellow. She had the right profile that attracted all the attention of the time, something that she may not have looked for but she thoroughly enjoyed, judging from the frequency of her rock star interviews. What differentiated her from Marissa Meyer or Sheryl Sandberg was that EH had been a tech “founder” billionaire. From ascetic and reclusive, EH went quickly to the status of “ubiquitous celebrity”. She quickly changed her habits and image, hiring her top advertising agent to work as the company’s Chief Creative Officer on her new image and that of Theranos.

The demise of EH and Theranos was dated February 2015 when John Carreyrou, an investigative journalist at the WSJ, twice Pulitzer Prize winner and the subsequent author of our book, began to look into the whole story. The lack of peer reviewed data mentioned in more recent and inquisitive The New Yorker article seemed very suspect to him while the process as described by EH did not have the ring of a scientist or medical expert that she could not actually be and derided as “comically vague” by the magazine. He went back to the WSJ piece of seventeen months earlier, realising the impact it had had on EH’s image, company’s achievements and subsequent meteoric fundraising. He contacted various former company employees and individuals involved with Theranos, getting the impression that the technology just was not working as the world thought. Most former employees were obviously worried by their non-disclosure agreements and requested anonymity which was given. JC established very quickly through Alan Beam, the former head of the lab, all the testing process problems as if the flood of information had waited to erupt for too long even if the technical aspects required time to be digested. Management culture, style and the role of Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani were particularly addressed by JC’ interviewees, with some focus on the romantic relationship between the number one and number two at the company, all the while the New Yorker article had portrayed EH as a single whom the Kissingers had tried to fix up on dates, showing a lack of forthrightness with her board that might hide other key matters. Tyler Shultz was particularly eager to talk to JC, believing that in end his grandfather would do the right thing. So was Rochelle Gibbons, the widow of Ian Gibbons, the former head of chemistry who committed suicide. And increasingly, others. As it is like a detective story that is enjoyable to discover I will let you taste personally the ways JC uncovered the fraud and its many legal developments which ultimately led on 14th March 2018 to the SEC charging Theranos, EH and Sunny with “conducting an elaborate years-long fraud”. In order to resolve the agency’s civil charges, EH was forced to relinquish her voting control over Theranos, give back a substantial share of her stockholding and pay a USD 500,000 penalty, agreeing not to be a member of any public company for ten years. The SEC sued Sunny in California, having been unable to reach a settlement wth him. This set of civil remedies may seem little in relation to the magnitude of the fraud that was committed though, post-pool publication, EH and Sunny have been charged with Federal wire fraud (criminal charge) in relation to defrauding investors and the Federal Government by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California on 16th June, 2018, paving the way to potential jail time that would potentially and ultimately match the immensity of the fraud.

The most remarkable feature in this story of fraud is that it was a fraud that was orchestrated and hidden for so long and that EH was able in the meantime to attract so many talents as staff and board members without any problem and in spite of a terrible work environment and management culture. One should also remember that, while devoid of any formal medical or scientific training, EH was indeed a talented individual having identified a segment where she wanted to do good and make money as an entrepreneur, something that should not be totally forgotten. When EH started Theranos , another young dropout from Harvard this time, was also making history: Mark Zuckerberg. He would change the world, as EH wanted, but would have to deal with hubris and serious issues, prompting some drastic personal and corporate adjustments, later. Theranos is also one of the most recent and biggest story of “vaporware” or “fake-it-until-you-make it” culture that is on and off prevalent in Silicon Valley. There will be may books and studies focused on EH to ascertain whether she was under the spell of Sunny or a real sociopath having created a corporate hell on earth, as it may be more likely, who took all the decisions as she did, controlling 97% of the voting rights of the company as of late 2013, rendering the board pointless in terms of decision-making if only as counterweight.

One of the main questions will remain why nothing could be done to stop that fraud earlier even if and when many tried to blow the whistle and more importantly how and why so many senior personalities enabled it by being true believers, especially among short-sighted potential partners who needed solution for their own futures and most certainly heavyweights at the board level. Finally the Theranos story is a story of Big Tech – with a health care focus that indeed lacked the adequate tech – (which the company could have been a leader of and was briefly to some extent) and its impact on our lives and society, changing it for the better and for the worse, depending where one looks. On this Big Tech evolution I recommend that you read regularly the great articles of Rana Foroohar from the FT, today one of the best journalists and writers dealing with the many implications of tech for us. Let’s remember that it is an investigative journalist who uncovered the Theranos fraud.

Incredible story of our times. Bad Blood is a book that should be read also as it is linked to “who we are” and why, even if we are, some of us, awed by tech wonders and their makers, we need to ensure that the creation of dreams and especially staggering wealth does not involve fraud and follows best practices and behaviour, lest we see other Theranos or Uber older formula arise…It is also a question of values and about what kind of society we wish to be and our children to grow and believe in.

I dedicate this book note to Kris, a brother and a great banker, who goes through tough times and I love. Life is short and what differentiates the greats is their care.

Now I have a question: Who’s going to play EH in the movie?

Warmest regards

Serge

 

Serge Desprat 19th July, 2018 (Martha’s Vineyard, MA)

 

Révolution Française: Emmanuel Macron and the Quest to Reinvent a Nation – Sophie Pedder

14-7-18

Dear Partners in thought,

When I was attending the Chamonix Get Together, a micro-Davos, in September 2016 and talking to his former boss at Rothschild & Cie about his chances in the forthcoming Presidential elections, the old and wise banker told me that he had none as he had no money. Foregone conclusion. Next topic please. Nine months later Emmanuel Macron had redefined the French political landscape, destroying left and right, crushing an inept Marine Le Pen (after a TV debate to remember, beating Nixon-JFK hands down) and becoming the youngest French President of the Fifth French Republic. EM, the man who defied all odds, became one of the leaders of both Europe and the free world at a time when his victory put a major stop to populism globally and countered that of another unlikely earlier winner across the pond.

I would like to recommend you a great book written by Sophie Pedder, the Paris Bureau Chief of the Economist: “Révolution Française: Emmanuel Macron and the Quest to Reinvent a Nation”. SP’s book is interesting at two levels: i) it is not written by an actor but an observer of French politics, also and that is key, non-French and ii) the quality of The Economist and its relative objectivity makes for a more dispassionate view of EM and France today. She takes us on a journey to understand EM, the man, from his childhood, his rise through the traditional steps of French meritocracy, his trek to the heights of French power and unusual voyage for his likes into investment banking before coming back to work for President Hollande under different roles, culminating into Bercy, the French ministry of the economy and finance. We go through his unusually dashing and at times cocky personality among French technocrats and his ambitious quest to make a difference, leading to his throwing his hat into the biggest Gallic ring, with no army and no money but an unparalleled drive and self-confidence. It is an amazing trip into En Marche, his movement of “marchers” (walkers and not of the sleeping kind) and his unseen so far ability to mobilise a sleepy civil society to change an old country whose history made it a pioneer among leading nations though riddled with self-doubts, a post- WWII legacy of state interventionism and a feeling of decline started in 1940, which de Gaulle and others fought hard and unsuccessfully to fully erase. This book is very good and insightful also as it is, as the FT put it recently, “sympathetic but not starry-eyed”. If I may, I will then take care of the latter while remaining fair.

EM won the French Presidency against all odds and partly as the center right candidate of Les Republicans, François Fillon, so far a remarkable politician, mismanaged the political backlash of jobs for his wife and family when a member of parliament more than a decade before. Fillon lost what was his to win. In seizing the Elysée, EM reshaped the French political landscape by destroying or weakening the traditional parties. The Socialist Party, one of the two leading parties of the Fifth Republic, becoming only a shadow of itself, reflecting the dilemmas faced by European social democracy. Les Republicans, which is the grandchild or great- grandchild of the Gaullist (UDR), then Chirac (RPR) parties is struggling to find a line between a modernist Macron and his En Marche movement (even if the latter is not a party) and the Front National (now renamed Rassemblement National or National Rally) not feeling enough air or space to evolve, while the National Rally of Marine Le Pen seems to struggle to exist and is also revisiting the merits of political dynasties. The only opposition, mainly in vocal and rally terms, is only the Insoumis of fiery tribune Mélanchon who have no policy impact. Meanwhile many tenors of former parties on the center right and left like Bruno Le Maire (finance minister), Edouard Philippe (ex-Le Havre Mayor now PM) or Jean-Yves Le Drian (ex-Socialist leader of Bretagne and former defence minister under President Hollande, now running Europe and Foreign Affairs at Le Quai d’Orsay) have joined EM and his centrist, yet mildly right leaning agenda that fits the times of liberal democracy.

One should remember that the Hollande Presidency (2012-2017), that was largely a reaction to the abrupt personal style of the Sarkozy one (2007-2012), was defined as a time of confusion with decisions taken too late and being too weak. One year after EM’s election, there is a certain feeling of confusions within the ranks of the government with contradictory statements, delayed policy events and quasi-public feuds, all that can also be explained by the fact that many in the leadership are new to governing. The matter is centred on whether EM’s policy of reforms, that the electorate supports, should not be “rebalanced” through a “rééquilibrage” – the official EM answer being no – and whether EM is not distancing himself from the French, reforming for their well being but being impervious with a certain coldness, distance, even contempt. Some of EM’s advisers tell him to keep the eye on the ball, forgetting about perception, others tell him to change attitude and being closer to the French lest the reforms may derail through a lack of support.

EM is very bright and was “running” faster than anyone in France since age 16. He may suffer at times from the perception of an excess of “brio”. He also enjoys moving the lines and this not too subtly through what some see as provocation, the latter done on purpose. Enjoying authority (though not yet authoritarian), cynical, ungracious are words often mentioned and could easily slip into excessive arrogance, remoteness and scorn. Some observers actually believe that EM will succeed but that the French will not reward him, in a Giscard scenario 40 years before. The French like their leaders to be the best but dislike the first in the classroom (les “premiers de la classe”), reflecting many of the conflicted views French society has always had about power, money and politics. Many of the the French find EM a bit arrogant though they also wanted a leader to restore some dignity to the Presidency after a less than august Hollande and Sarkozy presidencies . They guillotined their king in 1793 but always wanted to get one back, loved Napoleon I and much later the Gaullist democratic Cesarism. Yet they are never happy, wanting one thing and its opposite, wanting their camembert and eating it too.

EM is not the son of Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the reformist President (1974-1981) looking for the ever elusive political center (as I wrote to the FT Editor who kindly published me before the first presidential round last year) nor he is the son of Michel Rocard, the once extreme left winger who turned out to be a social democratic reformist in the eighties, even if the young and aspiring leader worked for him. He is the son of none and sees himself as “Gaullo-Mitterrandien”, taking on the mantle of both de Gaulle and Mitterrand, the two most consequential French leaders of the Fifth French Republic since 1958. He is a King-President following to a great extent the first Napoleonic model, albeit in a democratic way and minus the wars of conquest. The French elected a block of granite, impervious to demagoguery and in many ways the opposite of the modern populist leader à la Trump. He does not speak to please his core electoral base, just to inform it about his policies. He can be too frank at times like in French Guyana when he told the locals he was not Santa Claus as the Guyanais were not children. There is little doubt that EM has a high opinion of himself though this may be a natural reflection of the view he holds of the French presidency.

Can EM reform France if he loses the trust of the French? Can he reform France if he does stay the two five year terms? Most political analysts tend to think that voters judge policies through people (not as much in the U.S. these days but it is another matter and it is indeed early days). If the French do not think EM understand them or have enough empathy for them, they may start believing his policies are indeed unfair. This feeling is compounded by EM’s “grand bourgeois” origins for most and his Fifth Paris Arrondissement Lycée Henri IV location where he did his pre-graduate “preparatory courses” and is indeed considered an elite Paris area (as an side mine was the nearby Sixth with College Stanislas, which leaders of the CAC 40 know rather well, so I relate to the feeling). We go back to the perennial questions, quite topical, these of populism, of the elite and meritocracy which are core topics these days and not only in France. Voters want to be led by the best and the brightest but somehow also resend the best, feeling they are looked down upon by those they chose to lead, unwittingly or not. In addition, this young (only 40) leader and his dashing, leaner JFK, good looks may irritate as when you reform France, it may be better to look like a monk.

EM’s first mark was probably in the international arena where he established himself as a leader and a promoter of the “France is back” slogan (the latter, incidentally, felt vividly by the French expatriate communities globally). However his foreign policy impact was not expressed in nationalistic terms (“America first”-like) but rather as a contributor to the renewal of the European Union via the strengthening of the French-German axis at a time when Angela Merkel was struggling domestically following the aftermath of her open door migrant policy of 1995. In addition to working on his EU renewal plans, EM scored initial wins in inviting President Trump to the July 14 Bastille Day military parade (prompting copycat ideas back in DC; one wonders if EM had invited DT to do something special on the Eiffel Tower…) and in inviting President Putin to Versailles, home of the French kings, thus conveying the respect that the Russian President-Tsar finds key for his country and is a motor of his policies. EM stated clearly that France was back and was ready to talk “to all parties”, thus cementing the main foreign policy stance of his presidency. Clearly subsequent developments, such as trying to use his good relationship with DT, to soften the trade war stances of the American President, did not always create positive results, even if EM seemed relentlessly trying to change the course of events. While America is retreating from its role of leader of the Western world, weakening that very world in the process, EM is focused on ensuring the EU can transcend its differences (largely borne out of the migration issues) and develop a new stage of its history. In doing so, EM is focused on the EU core (noyau dur) without naming it given its elitist (yet again) flavour and driving the relationship with a politically more unstable Germany at a time of increasingly more complex EU (Italy and across Central & Eastern Europe.) EM believes in blocs, using the EU as a way for France to “exist” but also to ensure the EU strengthen itself as there is no alternatives in a world increasingly led by other blocs, most of whom developing strong and with increasingly nationalistic agendas, be they first or retaliatory strikers. In short, EM is not a politician – he does want to reinvent a nation, that plays a leading role in a multipolar world, if I may partly borrow from SP.

Recent polls show that EM retains an 85% support among its electorate and secured 50% of losing rival François Fillon’s centre right electorate making him a strong political player in today’s France where his opposition is either fragmented or non-existent on the traditional left and right sides of the spectrum. His base is thus very solid and has grown in strength if it can be argued that EM’s centre looks shifting on its right given his economic programme and the perceived relative lack of focus on assisting the French in need, the latter which may be a by-product of his will to change France and make people more responsible individually for their destinies. The key goal for his base is that he reforms the SNCF (the French state railways), a traditional bastion of the most radical unions and the French Communist Party since WWII. Concerns, as seen in polls, are in the slower capability to explain his reforms, so focused he is on their implementation and a certain focus on the “well offs” as part of its “free and protect” master policy plan. To date, only a very tiny minority of his supporters are disappointed while the opposition, left and right, is still searching for a message. The last polls show 50% of satisfied, 33% feeling it is too early to say and only 17% disappointed. By all standards, a year after a major election, this result shows Macron to be right (no pun intended).

A question and some observations: We can have and need great leaders. Do we ever have great peoples?

Democracy needs strong leaders and weakness is not a desired attribute. Democracy needs to be strong, supported by the building blocks of Western liberal values and empowered by strong leaders.

Can we combine everything we want in our leaders? What features matter? Results or personality and style? (even core Trump supporters forget about a certain lack of dignity, personally and in the role, as long as they feel there are resuts, even if they may be short term and, some would argue, illusory). For my part, I believe that personality and style matter as true leadership is whole.

Warmest regards from the American Athens of the 18th century, Boston, the home of the bean and the cod Where the Lowells speak only to the Cabots And the Cabots speak only to God! (Many thanks, dearest Alec, mentor, fellow of the Charles river and symbol of why I believe in another America – for you and all of us).

Warmest Regards,

Serge

 

Serge Desprat- July, 2018 (Prague)

The Restless Wave – John McCain

11-7-18

Dear Partners in thought,

“A true American hero” is how John McCain is most described, increasingly so and this for many reasons. It may look excessive if not Hollywood-like, except that it’s not. America has always been a country of exception – indeed the indispensable country – often with individuals of exception at its helm, not all running it but always contributing to its destiny. John McCain is one of them and “The Restless Wave” his testimony, a book that stresses his longlasting drive I recommend reading for those who like great stories and believe in a world ran by our traditional Western liberal, not to say American, values. McCain is emblematic of a disappearing specie in our times which is that of the moderate Republican, a value- based internationalist, free trader, strong on defense and pro-capitalist individual (incidentally my political home, assuming I were to hold a U.S. passport).

The son and grandson of two Admirals (his grandfather was on the deck of the USS Missouri when Japan surrendered), McCain was nevertheless not predestined to greatness (in his very own words), having followed his recent forebears’s footsteps to Annapolis, where he graduated at the bottom of his class. We know that the Vietnam war and his extremely tough prisoner experience changed everything, later leading to a career in the U.S. Senate as first, junior, then senior, moderate, Republican Senator for the State of Arizona. This book, while reminiscing about the key aspects of his whole career and persona is really more focused on the period following his defeat against Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential elections. McCain could have been President if not for the wind of history bringing in the first African American President and a dubious choice of running mate, which he still supports, though being aware of its weaknesses. The book is well structured and its chapters focus on key topics and people having marked America and McCain very directly over the last ten years, which I will cover broadly. After reading this book, if there was an adjective to describe McCain across the aisles, it would be “honorable” and that would be a major understatement.

In No Surrender and Country First, MacCain discusses the 2008 campaign and the men and women involved in it, among whom, also his brief primary rival, the lawyer- turned actor-turned U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (a tall, massive, easily recognisable Law & Order character, always projecting the requisite gravitas that would get him later to the U.S. Senate). While he campaigned for two years, McCain, while running, also fulfilled his duties as a U.S. Senator, his main focus at the time being supporting the Iraq surge which was unpopular and risking costing him dearly in the Republican primary where Mitt Romney, the ex-Bain Capital founder, former Governor of Massachusetts and future 2012 nominee, was his main rival then. We see him with his friend Senator Lindsay Graham of Florida (often a duo that would rise against DT’s policies years later) in Iraq. There is a notable ceremony of naturalisation of Hispanic immigrants, often illegal, who were fighting within the U.S. forces in Iraq. We see a couple of boots representing two dead soldiers that had made the ultimate sacrifice with General David Petraeus, the Roman legion strategist and fighter, first in class at West Point and the figurehead of the surge, saying: “They died serving a country that was not yet theirs”. McCain wishing “that every American who out of ignorance or worse curses immigrants as criminals or a drain on the country’s resources or on our “culture” could have been there”, wanting “them to know that immigrants many of them having entered the country illegally, are making sacrifices for Americans that many Americans would not make for them”. Going back to the race and the primary he finally secures, McCain goes into his strategy of running a McCain-Libermann ticket, with Joe Lieberman, an independent, formerly Democratic Senator, before going for Sarah Palin, whom he will select as running mate, going in great details to explain the rationale for it. McCain knows early on Obama’s strong competitive advantages based on his age, image of change at so many levels and comparative party positioning though he bets on his experience and foreign policy acumen. The polls are close but the Lehman Brothers collapse changes everything, putting Obama in the lead and making the McCain team not expecting miracles. In addition he has to fight some of his more extreme supporters’ racial slurs against Obama and defend responses that are not strong enough from him and his team, assuming they were obvious to start with. His team feels outspent, out-advertised and out-organised, expecting to lose which they do on election day. There is a feeling that, while he does not like to lose (who does?) he was stoically ready for it.

About Us is about the formal breach of American ideals in the fight against terrorism in the aftermath of 9-11. While having declared on 9-12 that “We are coming. God may have mercy on you, but we won’t”, McCain discusses the extreme measures taken since late 2001 to respond to the losses of 3,000 lives at The World Trade Center in NY, including the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) or torture in an other name and the dilemma counter-terrorists and the military face in defending the U.S. from further attacks. McCain feels strongly it is wrong politically, intellectually and morally to torture terrorists and not applying the Geneva Convention to these enemy combatants, while branches of the U.S. government feel it can apply EIT to seized terrorists as they are not signatories to any convention. McCain believes that in doing so the application of EIT openly damages the interests, reputation and interests of the U.S. globally. We go through various cases of EIT application, including the famous one in relation to the Abu Ghraib Confinement Center. McCain calls on all Americans to live America’s ideals to remember that “we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those individual who wish to destroy us”. Once again, “the moral values and integrity of our nation, and the long, difficult, fraught history to uphold them at home and abroad, are the test of every American generation”. This chapter is the first of a few to focus on values, that define McCain. It is also a very hard issue to deal with, remembering 9-11 and its trauma (We all have very personal ways and memories to relate to 9-11 and the end of an era; I worked briefly on the 93rd floor of the South Tower in 1987). It is definitely a problem of conscience though I can also hear the voices in the trenches of the Len and women who protect us, doing what we don’t and don’t want to know, stressing that the end justifies the means and that in front of the most abject terror, war can only be total.

In the Company of Heroes deals with McCain’s natural, close, involvement with the U.S. troops on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq (he will have gone more to Afghanistan) and his admiration for the military leadership and tactical brilliance of Generals Petraeus and Odierno as well as the new ways to fight insurgency led by “Team of Teams”‘ General McChrystal, the latter who was removed from command by President Obama following the ill-famous Rolling Stones interview on how the U.S. could win the war in Afghanistan, outside the traditional chain of command. It is palpable that McCain relates vividly to these soldiers away from home, fighting for their country as he did in another life. Arab Spring unsurprisingly covers the seismic regional power shifts initially triggered by the self-immolation of Tunisian fruit trader Mohamed Bouazizi that was followed by home-made leadership and regime changes in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, the dreadful civil war in Syria and the internationally-led elimination of Muammar Qaddafi and his regime in Lybia. McCain goes in detail about each key zone of change and spends time on the attack of the Benghazi mission resulting in the death of Special Envoy Christopher Steven, whom he knew and admired for his “all in” trademark attitude, that would have long repercussions including in the campaign of the 2016 presidential elections. McCain also covers in detail the Syrian conflict and its many vivid ramifications in terms of migrations and political and human consequences within the EU. In Fighting the Good Fight (with and against Ted Kennedy), McCain focuses on immigration, legal and illegal, and narrates his many bill efforts and working most of the time with the senior Senator of Massachusetts to craft bipartisanship solutions until his death from brain cancer in 2009. It is also about the old bipartisanship, of the kind I mentioned in “The Hellfire Club” among veterans, even if Ted (another “great” I was fortunate to meet in 1982 in Boston) was not. Then comes Russia and Putin, the latter’s McCain’s primary foe in Nyet (know thine enemy) where he goes through the change in relationship with the Kremlin since the advent of President Putin and a gradually more nationalistic foreign policy in the mid-eighties, focusing on Georgia and the slow descent to war as well as the Magnitsky Act and its related sanctions following the death in jail of Russia-based asset manager Hermitage’s Bill Browder’s lawyer. As a sequel, McCain covers in Know Thyself (defending the West) the invasion of Crimea and the Ukraine conflict in Kiev and in the east, the killing of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, as well as the attempts to destabilise Montenegro following its desire to join NATO and the EU. As MacCain concludes: “China is the challenge of the century but Putin is the clear and present danger…”. In deference to my Russian friends and while Russia has had a very unilateral, nationalistic, foreign policy, at times using the widest range of tools at its disposal to compensate for its relative strength status, one should never forget the Russian trauma associated with the loss of empire, the way it may not have been treated afterwards and the utter need for respect as a key international player. While being aware of McCain’s rationale, there may indeed be merits in engaging with Russia so as to gradually make it change its approach and perceptions in order to work with her in the concert of nations. In this respect, events like the World Cup, an organisational and sporting success for Russia may be one the early steps toward normalisation, even if the hybrid war may perdure for a while as my expert friend Dmitri Trenin recently wrote for the famed Carnegie Moscow Center.

In Part of the Main (American Exceptionalism) is a key chapter. McCain quotes Saint Exupery, the famed author of The Little Prince, expressing during WWII when flying with U.S. forces, the inextricable link between American interests and the global progress of American ideals. McCain believes that the U.S. has a special responsibility to champion human rights “in all places, for all people, at all times”. Because “it is who we are” (incidentally, I used that one often lately). He is not shy of proclaiming: “I am a democratic internationalist, a proud one and I have been all my life”. He goes on to focus on Burma and his involvement in making changes happen in that country ruled by the military.

Always respecting Obama as a man and a President, he briefly mentions his foreign policy record. He defended the Libyan intervention but was appalled at too early a withdrawal on the ground of avoiding another Iraq quagmire, coining the “leading from behind” approach. He was angered by the refusal to provide Kiev with weapons to protect its sovereignty. He was sad when the Obama administration did not uphold the red line after the use of chemical weapons in Syria, naming it the biggest mistake of his presidency, hurting American interests and values. While he never doubted Obama’s sincerity, he regretted that Obama did not make the hard calls when needed, confounding allies, encouraging enemies and having many good people stranded, starting an American leadership withdrawal in fact if not in name. However McCain never doubted that Obama shared the 75 year old bipartisan consensus that American leadership of the free world was a moral obligation and a practical necessity.

While discussing American exceptionalism, McCain starts clearly distancing himself from DT (even if he would vote for some of his legislative proposals like the tax cuts but not others like the repeal of Obamacare). McCain clearly stresses how appalled he is about DT’s style in communication and overall tactics and his disdain for American values, the global progress of democracy and the rule of law abroad. He finds disturbing DT’s “lack of empathy for refugees, innocent, persecuted, desperate men, women and children” and finds abhorrent his mention of welfare or terrorism being for him their only reasons to come to America. He cannot condone DT’s absence of interest in the moral compass of world leaders and their regimes. He lambasts DT’s attacks on free media and his use of “fake news to discredit unflattering news stories. He cannot stand DT’s showing with praise the world’s worst tyrants. His criticism goes far beyond DT, when he attacks former State Secretary Rex Tillerson who warned State Department employees not to condition relations with nations “too heavily” on their adoption of values “we’ve come to after a long history of our own” (to his credit, RT’s VMI Commencement address last May, heavily reported, shows his regrets and clear adherence to traditional American values). There is no doubt that McCain is appalled at the treatment by DT of allies, be it in relation to NATO, trade or the G7, regardless of the necessary changes that the U.S. may wish in striking more balenced relationships. There is a long, emotional address to the U.S. Senate that MacCain gave on the occasion of the health care debate that transcends it, focused on the role of the Senate itself, going to the core of American history and values, which is particularly moving in our challenging times. This speech also underpins the need for enhanced civility and cooperation in politics and society, two features which have been seriously damaged lately, also given the example provided by those who should lead by example at the top.

McCain is fighting brain cancer, knowing the odds, but keeping hope that he will be around for a bit longer to contribute a few more times. (If I may say, even if mine was non-cancerous, I relate more than others to the unfairness of the affliction and the powerlessness attached to it, feeling his approach all the more admirable). He looks forward and is simply grateful. Grateful for 50 years of service to his country and having lived so long – he is 81 -, contributing so much. I am sure this American hero knows that tough times, also for countries, don’t last, and that tough countries do. In one sign of control over his own destiny, he sent the clear message to DT that he should not attend his funeral. After you have read his book, you will feel that McCain, whom you would have liked to have known more earlier, whilst being an American hero, is also like founding father Thomas Paine, a citizen of the world.

Merci, Monsieur McCain.

Warmest regards,

Serge

PS: If I may I would like to provide you with a tailored excerpt of the powerful words of his prologue. Written only a few years ago, they would have seemed mundane, if not quaint. Written in 2018, they sound reminiscent of a distant golden era while pushing us to go back to it.

(America is) “the most wondrous land on earth, indeed. What a privilege it is to serve this big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, striving, daring, beautiful, bountiful, brave, magnificent country. With all our flaws, all our mistakes, with all the frailties of human nature as much on display as our virtues, with all the rancor and anger of our politics, we are blessed. We are living in the land of the free, the land where anything is possible, the land of the immigrant’s dream, the land with the storied past forgotten in the rush to the imagined future, the land that repairs and reinvents itself, the land where a person can escape the consequences of a self-centred youth and know the satisfaction of sacrificing for an ideal, where you can go from aimless rebellion to a noble cause and from the bottom of your class to your party’s nomination for President.

We are blessed, and in turn, we have been a blessing to humanity. The world order we have built from the ashes of world war, and that we defend to this day, has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. This wondrous land shared its treasures and ideals and shed its blood to help make another, better, world…We have sought to make the world more stable and secure, not just for our own society…To fear the world we have organised and led for three- quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is unpatriotic. American nationalism isn’t the same as in other countries. It isn’t nativist or imperial or xenophobic, or it shouldn’t be. Those attachments belong with other tired dogma that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.

We live in a land made from ideals, not blood and soil. We are custodians of these ideals at home, and their champions abroad. We have done great good in the world because we believed our ideals are the natural aspirations of all mankind, and that the principles, rules and alliances of the international order that we superintended would improve the prosperity and security of all who joined with us. That leadership has had its costs, but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as well. We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we let other powers assume our leadership role, powers that reject our values and resent our influence. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn’t deserve to.

All is said.


Serge Desprat – 11 July, 2018 (Boston)


The Hellfire Club – Jake Tapper

3-7-18

Dear Partners in thought,

As we are now well into the summer, I decided to turn yet again to the world of novels which has always provided us with a way to escape, a feeling that is very welcome.

I wanted to tell you about “The Hellfire Club” by Jake Tapper, the very Jake from CNN’s State of the Union. This novel has nothing to do with today’s politics (directly at least, but indirectly who knows?) so friends of Fox News and the like can enjoy a break without the fear of so-called liberal and radical fake news. The action takes place in the DC of the 1950s where America and its leadership were rebuilding the world and where the “swamp” we hear about was getting perfected. Whist a novel all the protagonists and general background are real and the research very thorough. As an aside, Jake could easily be a main character with his Gary Cooper’s 1950s good, clean, looks (No, I am not gay).

We are in 1954 and Joe McCarthy, working with Bob Kennedy (indeed, how do we forget), is at his fifth year of eradicating the red threat from all walks of American life, having no qualms of breaking careers and doing away with otherwise good people. We run into Joe Alsop as well as Richard and Patricia Nixon, him the current VP and of course Ike, the D Day mastermind, who has been in the White House for two years. We have a chat with LBJ then Senate minority leader and running Texas for the Democrats, in a time, long ago, when they did. The hero is Charlie Everett Marder, a Columbia academic, specialist of the Founding Fathers, turned Republican congressman when asked to take up a seat after his predecessor died in mysterious circumstances (we know something is afoot early on). Like many of his peers he is a war veteran who saw the horrors of the former world conflict, him in France. He is married to Margaret, a very independent lady, zoologist by trade, whom he met in college and was not just studying “for her Mrs. degree” to borrow from a well-know line of the times. He is an idealist do-gooder and wishes to change things for the better, but learning fast he has to compromise to survive and still matters in his new career in DC.

Bipartisanship is a reality in American politics then, mainly through weekly poker games among veterans that form a class transcending parties and where policies are promoted or killed in a late night, smoke-filled, atmosphere of camaraderie forged on the battlefields of Asia or Europe. As an observer says: “It’s both reassuring and disconcerting to see them all friendly-like” but the bond is there nearly ten years after the war as they share humble memories, knowing that their main achievement was to survive. They all drink like fish (“Political life seems to require new levels of drinking”) as if alcohol was a fully accepted cement of policy- making. We witness the first black congressmen – again two veteran Tuskegee airmen – at a time when the civil rights movement is not yet at full speed. Clubs rule the day, some more known that others like the Alfalfa or the Gridiron, some far more obscure, not to say secret like the Hellfire Club that has its roots in 17th century England and an infamous history of debauchery by its then aristocratic members. Fights take place when companies that manufactured military goods during the last war wish to get funding from the Appropriations Committee in an effort led by its prominent Chairman and a fight ensues, led by Estes Kefauver, a leading Democratic Senator (who – trivia time – won the New Hampshire primary in 1952 before being sidelined). Investigations are launched into the pernicious effect of comic books on the American youth. We learn that a boy thought he was a super hero and could fly). It is reminiscent of today’s articles and the young’s (and no so young’s) addiction to their iPhone. In a famous line, we learn that via a book pushed by the crusaders that “Batman and Robin were like a wish dream of two homosexuals living together. Superman was a fascist, Wonder Woman a lesbian dominatrix”. Good people do prevail as in all good novels that wish to et us to read more.

It is America at its best (with funny quirks) and at times worst – even then – running the world, setting up the Western Alliance, telling us why it makes sense. And I bought it. And still believe in it.

As it is a novel I shall stop here and not return like MacArthur. Enjoy this great book.

Warmest regards,

Serge

Serge Desprat- July 2018 (Paris)


The President is Missing – James Patterson & Bill Clinton

15-6-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I was hesitant to comment on “The President is Missing” from James Patterson and Bill Clinton as I did not want to stray from my core initiative, not to say mission. However I thought that when a former American President and a leading thriller writer band together, there might be a message or two to be found, especially in our troubled times. The book is clearly a novel but the subject matter, the co-authorship and even the title led me to do a review of sorts, especially at the start of the summer in Prague when a dose of lightness (of being and this time very bearable) is always nice, whatever the prevailing times.

JP and Bill are both displayed as fully-fledged authors on the same cover type font (and unsurprisingly not this time with JP before his “co-author”). I will admit that, yes, I have liked JP’s books ever since “Jack and Jill”, especially those written in the late nineties-early noughts. And even if Anne-Sophie (my very educated and wise wife) takes JP’s books as not real literature as three page chapters in big print don’t pass the test, I always liked JP’s knack for good stories, including his choice of characters, like the famed Alex Cross, even if I tend to agree that he has found a peculiar way to bring the old industrial revolution to penmanship through the use of an ever larger team of writing partners, potentially dampening something on the way. What decided me was the title – “The President is Missing” – that could be taken literally (and indeed one should, while I will respect the plot’s fine prints for better beach times) – but that could also be a tongue in cheek one, probably never admitted (or admissible, though that sounds so much Mueller investigation-like) as it could be argued that the actual President is indeed missing, this in more ways than one. Or maybe is he too much around these days and we would like him to be missing? (but always in good health, in sunny Florida, that is, so there is no unfortunate confusion).

Bill seems to have had a good time working with JP, if we except the book tour when “Monicagate” was brought back unexpectedly to the fore in a TV interview (and JP was on-his-feet swift in his defence or that of the book focus which showed, regardless of any view on the 20 year old matter, some nice and true grit). As an aside, it is an interesting point that we call Bill Clinton Bill while we never call George W Bush (whom we miss too, especially now) George, though I digress. Bill brought in the experience, the kind of which you only get by walking the corridors of the West Wing and projecting that unique track record of having run the greatest show on earth. The book is definitely on top of JP’s writing quality, mixing a great plot with a level of authenticity that can only come from an insider like Bill. Chapters are no longer three pages and while the type font is the same, wording density and quality is way above the usual JP fare. The book at 500+ pages is also much longer than the usual JP productions. It would be interesting to know whether Bill actually did some of the writing though probably not, focusing on contents veracity (in chapter 4, there is an episode mentioning the political demise as a congresswoman of his chief of staff that will make readers knowingly smile at the likely self-deprecating wink).

The President is Jonathan Lincoln Duncan (note Dun-can rings like Clin-ton and the reference to Lincoln, Professor Gaddis’s hedgehog-fox supremo), a former Governor of North Carolina (and not Arkansas) and speaks in the first person, making us feel somehow that he will make it to page 513. The atmosphere feels real which is the least to expect but is especially well rendered in the painting of each scene and the delivery of the characters. There is an effort to depict those senior civil servants with humanity so we know where they come from, how they got there and what makes them tick. The President is very human, a recent widower with a relapsing illness fighting impeachment in his first term. Run of the mill stuff. There is a Martin Sheen’s President Bartlett’s “West Wing” feel to JLD up to the depiction of his personal assistant. We go from crisis to crisis to ceremonial events that shows us the daily life of Presidents with uprisings in Central America, followed by assassination attempts in the Gulf and memorials to fallen soldiers, going back to the Sit Room to oversee a drone strike against a terrorist cell in Yemen and finally night walks without Secret Service detail running into fellow Irak 1 war vets and ex-members of the Big Red One. (note that Hillary was quite supportive of the book as stated in the “thanks” and that JLD met also his wife at law school – UNC at Chapel Hill not Yale – though similarly in the library).

The President is taking the lead to thwart a massive viral cyber attack after his daughter, a grad student at La Sorbonne (excellent choice), is approached with information about the mother of all terrorist plots against the U.S. and a plan to meet her father in DC to tell more. A Turkish cyberterrorist boy wonder looks to be behind the threat though is saved by the President when a Ukrainian hit team targets him in Algeria for elimination, making us and a select congressional committee wonder. An attractive professional Serbian lady sniper in an early stage of pregnancy (very differentiated foe indeed) and her merc team get involved. Ensues a number of intense developments like a shooting at a baseball stadium, car chases along the Capitol area and more shooting, without us and the President still knowing what the threat really is. Then there is a Benedict Arnold in our midst, one of six tested senior officials in the know of the threat, who might have arranged the earlier hits, in cahoots with the terrorists. A foreign power is behind all this, which the ever friendly Mossad tells JLD could be Russia, which does not raise eyebrows. I will not spoil the story anymore, knowing you want me to stop.

The story is well crafted, if only a little bit convoluted. In any case the plot, which is very enjoyable, does not really matter. What does are the messages conveyed by JP & Bill as they are the reason why they banded together so they could stress a few key themes along the way and make them more easily absorbed in the novel format by the widest possible audience.

The main message is raising the awareness of the risk of cyberthreats to our way of life and the need for state of the art cybersecurity (I have to disclose my wife and I are lead investors in a great UK cybersecurity start-up before I go any further (*)). The book provides a crash course on what cyberthreats, phishing and other cyber warfare weapons, tactics and targets are and the nation states and their patriotic proxies that have used that new war tool (some far more than others offensively as is well known – my intent is not to conduct a seminar on cyber warfare – but basically all the leading powers). It is clear that recent years and all the hackings that took place during the last U.S. presidential campaign, posing a risk to the very democratic process, that have been attributed directly and indirectly to Russia, have led JP and Bill to stress the point, all the more as it was close to home for the latter. Richard C. Clarke, the cyber warfare Czar under four Presidents was consulted for insider accuracy (read his 2010 Cyber War, which is non-fiction but reads like a novel). The timing of the book ahead of critical November mid-term elections at a challenging time for America is no coincidence. Cyber warfare is a major and exponential threat to our societies as we rely increasingly on technology and thus make ourselves, our key infrastructures and our very democratic process unwittingly weaker and asymmetrical targets in the process.

The book has also other messages which are peppered along with quite a few depictions of emblematic scenes of daily American life (e.g. on one of his “nights out” in the Capitol area, JLD witnesses an African American teenager being forcibly arrested by two police officers and has a very balanced thought he shares with us) and sayings that warn of newer risks and stress these old Western liberal values:

  • “What happened to factual down-the-middle reporting?”
  • “We can’t survive without a free press.”
  • “We’re using modern technology to revert to primitive kinds of human relations. The media knows what sells – conflict and divisions. It’s all quick and easy. All too often anger works better than answers; resentment better than reason; emotion trumps (hm, hm – me here) evidence.”

There is a beautiful address to the joint session of Congress from JLD that encapsulates what America is and its values as we grew up to know them, that could have been given by Bill or by Ronald Reagan for that matter as it transcends partisanship and is the best summary of why Bill and JP became a band of brothers on this one occasion.

Going back to Western values, one of the common mistakes voters make when tempted by the sirens of populism is to forget the things that actually work in their lives. It is a case of taking things for granted and gradually forgetting about them, if only to regret them when the consequences of their action or inaction leads to the disappearance of key things and rights that seemed inalienable. What is key in a book like JP’s & Bill’s is also as much its messages as its sheer existence and the fact that we came to a point in our Western world when we can freely read a novel very close to the topic and actors of national leadership without suffering censorship. We actually do not think about it but that right was made possible because others fought for it, hence our duty to defend the values upon which that right was built. Nothing lasts forever if not protected and challenging times, like ours, should show that these rights and values are indeed eminently fragile.

One of the memorable quotes in the book, on its last page, comes from Ben Franklin when asked after the Constitutional Convention what kind of government the founders had given to the nascent America. His reply: “A republic, if you can keep it”.

Warmest regards,

Serge

(*): Just for fun, information and to inject some personal angle on the core topic of the novel: http://www.cyberessentialsdirect.com

Serge Desprat- 15th June, 2018 (Boston)

In Defense of a Liberal Education – Fareed Zakaria

14-6-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I would like to tell you about a wonderful book published in 2015 as it directly and indirectly deals with many key subjects we regularly cover, which is the famed “In Defense of a Liberal Education” by Fareed Zakaria. This book and his author are actually emblematic of major issues facing us today such as immigration, globalisation, meritocracy and what – and implicitly where – we (well, mostly but not only, our kids) should study in an age focused on securing jobs and lives constantly redefined by the tech revolution.

Fareed Zakaria was born and raised in Mumbai in a Muslim family (a fact not so well-known – he is secular and non-practising), educated at the Cathedral and John Connon School in Mumbai. Then he came to America in 1982, having been accepted at Yale (his older brother, Arshad, had gone to Harvard a few years earlier – they never played the Game). He was a President of the Yale Political Union and a member of Scroll & Keys society (He was actually quite politically conservative there while considering himself a centrist today). He went on to do a PhD in Government at Harvard (political sciences in the local lingo) studying under Samuel Huntington (well-known for “The Clash of Civilisations” in 1993) and Stanley Hoffman, the latter a great Vienna-born immigrant and European Affairs guru I mentioned in my brief 1982 dealings with. Interestingly Fareed eventually would help set up the Yale-NUS program (National University of Singapore) creating a strong Asian presence for Yale and mixing the best of both worlds (*). At age 28, he became the Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs, the Bible of the Council of Foreign Relations, which as you know, has been the NY-based establishment beacon of American foreign policy-makers for decades. Today, while being known for his CNN work (see below), he also has a weekly column in the Washington Post (Go see “The Post” with Streep and Hanks by the way) and has contributed to Newsweek, The Times and the Atlantic Monthly. Fareed is indeed a most accomplished chap and a very professional one too, also oozing balance and modesty. He is the embodiment of the American dream and why immigration, a pillar of American success, is key to the continued growth of the indispensable country.

Fareed is the “trailblazer” representative of the rising Asian-American class, many of whom, still very often not-American born, have excelled at integration and literally invaded Ivy League world and the likes (I was at the Yale Commencement Ceremony last May and had a feeling New Haven, CT was a suburbs of Singapore). Typically only 10-11% of college classes of Harvard, Yale and Princeton are comprising foreigners but the proportion of Asian-Americans far exceeds that number today, based obviously on merit that cannot be ignored by admission committees in spite of quota rumours and pressures often heard. In all fairness these Asian-Americans are culturally far more American than Asian, as I have noticed with my very interesting and enriching encounters and friendships – one in particular. What is key is their successful blending of the hard work ethics, often dismissed discipline and, to some extent, scientific approach provided by their Asian roots with the entrepreneurial freedom, conventional wisdom challenging and”sky is the limit” ethos traditionally breathed by their country of adoption. They simply have brains, work hard, are focused, want to succeed and benefit from the greatest learning environment. They also show immigration can be very successful for the host country as they will go on to expand the American (apple) pie. One could be forgiven to say that they are the very kind that Make America Great Again (with or or without the red cap). This is an interesting feature for us to realize during those times of immigration tragedies and debates even if the comparison could be simplistic as illegal immigrants may not all possess the same qualities or aspirations as they cross the border simply to escape strife, persecution and/or desire a better life. And they are illegal, which these Asian-American Ivy Leaguers are not, even if a tiny few may have been initially.

Another feature linked to topics often debated is Fareed’s first really widely recognised opus in 2003 which was “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad”. In this book he was the precursor, 12 years before the rise of Western populism, of the dangers that democracy itself (“democracy is the worst of all systems except for all the others” to quote Winston Churchill) could have hidden in its midst and was indeed hidden so far, especially in America, as voting participation was so low and considered the game of the “educated” or knowledgeable ones. In its aftermath came “The Post American World” published in 2008 which was also an extension of the message of “The Future of Freedom” as America, in the midst of the Iraq quagmire, was confronted with the demise of the unipolar world arisen from the ashes of the Berlin Wall (I found this book so good that when on holiday in Cambridge, Massachusetts I bought a few copies and sent it to mentors and friends – usually the same!). I also recommend their reading as they provide an unusual rear view mirror which Fareed did not think about then, so much his visions came true across the Western world (and elsewhere – Read the FT’s Gideon Rachman’s Tuesday 26th June excellent piece on “Trump Leads a Global Revivalism of Nationalism”).

Coming back to the current note on the book published in 2015 (his latest), Fareed stressed that liberal arts education was under attack as many states governors had then pledged not spending taxpayer money on subsidising them while he lamented that English and History majors were in decline. Fareed remembered the focus he had known in India for “skills-based” education so students could simply find good jobs. He explains his journey to the top of American learning, discovering literally a new world. He then goes on explaining why that skills-based approach is short- sighted and mistaken. He offers a brief history of liberal education and then expounds on the key virtues of a liberal arts education: How to write clearly, how to express yourself convincingly and how to think analytically. In fact he goes back to the roots of education which is not to focus on a job but to make one “thinks” so one can do whatever she wants, including finding a great job. This mission of education and universities in particular to shape thinking abilities is crucial and immemorial for many good reasons tested by history. Technology cannot replace this even if it can provide different tools and media to shape thinking as long as it does not replace it or individuals do use it as a mean instead of an end. Fareed takes engineering as an example stressing that this skills-based value-added profession is great but that it is strongly enhanced by creativity, lateral thinking, design, communication, storytelling and importantly learning and keeping at it – all gifts of a liberal education. A liberal education can also provide the tools to empower individuals to think for themselves and not be subjected by ready-made opinions that fit too nicely what one wants to hear – the problem of our times. Liberal education can be the guarantor of a working democracy as it usually comprises and therefore safeguards values that have defined our Western societies – those old Western liberal values (you see the full circle here).

The book is also a very enjoyable read as Fareed is very witty, starting on the very first page as what one should do when coming to America today (I will let you enjoy it). While focused on liberal education, he also goes through the key developments that led to the creation of an unparalleled meritocratic educational system, very much representing the views of the founding fathers, which perdures until today. To expand on his views, it is remarkable that in 2018 “everybody” can go to Harvard, Yale or Princeton if one has a great story to tell and achievements to show. While cultural background of course matters as well as, some would say, zip codes – as it gives those applicants a privileged environment to have grown into -, money is no object thanks to the massive endowment funds that will keep funding excellence: Harvard has a USD 35bn endowment while Yale and Princeton rely upon a USD 25 bn fund each that are run by dedicated asset managers and the highest level professionals in the trade (such as David Swansen for Yale) devoted to funding tuitions for students in need as well as research to keep these places of learning at the top of their leagues worldwide. Admissions Committees also want diversity as they value its benefits to all so not all NY Upper East Siders go enjoying the ivy. However it is true that there is a finite number of slots (1500 per class at Yale College) and admission committees need making choices among a pool of extremely highly talented applicants, not all of whom who will make it. Higher education, particularly at the top, still is a key American competitive advantage, an indispensable creator of leadership material and the perfect example of the symbiosis of business and society that has so well defined America. And many of them are focused on liberal education even if one should never forget the likes of MIT and the very suitably Valley-located Stanford (the latter, yes George, Nikos and Haitao, which I am told has a great business school 🙂 ).

I would also like to recommend you to join the Fareed Zakaria daily Global Briefing (Google and subscribe) which is a very quick summary of key issues you can get every day from main headlines selected by Fareed (it is enjoyable as it also takes one minute to read). I also recommend for those who do not fear weekly challenges (usually on Sunday) to take the Fareed quiz: ten questions on international relations news, some obvious, many trivial. It is a real test of ego as I do not know anyone who did 10/10 and most fall below 5 (my record is 8/10 but I was lucky on one or two questions) http://www.cnn/fareed.zakaria.com (If you do a ten please let me know). Lastly, I find his CNN GPS on Sunday very good (11 am EST/3 pm London/4 pm Paris/5 pm Athens) as he covers key topics of international relations with maestria, inviting key people and not just those easy to handle (he had a famous and quite friendly and civilised one hour exchange with Steve Bannon when the latter was holidaying with the Northern League recently).

So the word of the day is “Think” and the message is that society, whilst needing to protect its core identity, gets richer through diversity as America amply demonstrated thus far. Fear of the unknown can be helped through education, liberal of course, like our values.

This book note is dedicated to Qi, a close friend and mentee, but first and foremost a Yalie gentleman and scholar, who came from China age 6 and is ensuring the American dream goes on while quietly taking, during the storm, the leadership mantle that America and the world need.

I wish you a great summer. I am now off to Paris and then to Boston, where it all began.

Warmest regards,

Serge

 

(*) Back in 2013, my daughter mistakenly applied to Yale NUS thinking she was applying to Yale, making for some funny developments. It turned out she went to the main Yale, became a History major and now is going to work in Boston for a great strategy consulting boutique. And to think she did not have the benefit of reading Fareed’s book! (I assume too much maybe 🙂
And if I may, by the way, getting into the Ivy League is not about whom you know or you can bribe. It is about core values. It is about merit. Relentless hard work. Discipline over years. Abnegation. Dedication. As I am sure you know.
Last point on immigration, lest my message may be misconstrued. Recognizing immigration as a tested component of American excellence does not mean foregoing a regulated approach to it and the need to maintain “identity”. It means understanding American history and ethos, going away from bigotry and also ensuring through appropriate legislation that good women and men looking for a better life have a fair shot at contributing to building that unique American pie in all walks of life and, of course, not only via the hallowed grounds of Harvard and Yale.

 

Serge Desprat- June 2018 (Prague)

From Cold War to Hot Peace – Michael McFaul

7-6-18

Dear Partners in thought,

My new book note is not about a novel this time but given the backdrop Leo Tolstoy would have written one.

As Moscow is home to the current World Cup, it seemed only fair to look for a book about Russia today. With “From Cold War to Hot Peace” a catchy title that says it all, Michael McFaul, the 7th U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation from a breezy January 2012 to February 2014 provided us with a great opportunity through his vivid account of the great relational shift between Moscow and the West that took place during his tenure. More than about MacFaul’s tenure this book is about the Russian Federation, the new Russia that had aspirations to be like us (or what we were) but gradually got back to its eternal roots as if the colour of the snow had never left it.

This book is not like any other for some of us, to paraphrase Dean Rusk for another time, who were “present at the creation” doing our bit to help change after seventy years of darkness but not really understanding what we were doing or actually not doing. Many of you will recognise themselves in this book and will wonder again at the speed of time. Thirty years already, a blip in history, a life for us.

Prior to his ambassadorship, McFaul worked in the Obama Administration for Tom Donilon in the U.S. National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and senior director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs. He was no Russian affairs novice and likely the best ever prepared U.S. Ambassador to Moscow as he has started promoting a rapprochement between Moscow and the West in his high school in native Montana in 1979 – quite a challenging proposition at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. His direct exposure and involvement started in 1983 when as a sophomore at Stanford he went on to his first journey to Russia, discovering Leningrad and the Soviet Empire. He then later spent a semester abroad in Moscow, mingling with the Refuseniks and getting a first hand exposure to the system’s doomed features. He then witnessed Gorbachev’s rise, Glasnost and Perestroika and irreversibly the gradual country’s demise. Back as a Fulbright scholar and working with the National Democracy Institute, a pro-democracy promotion NGO, he celebrated the birth of new Russia that he wanted to help becoming like another country, espousing capitalism and the Western ways on the way. Following the Soviet Union’s chaotic collapse and the start of the bumpy Yeltsin era, McFaul helped found the Carnegie Moscow Center in 1994, today one of the best if not the best Moscow-based international relations think tank (now ran by the excellent Dmitri Trenin) that has maintained an invaluable conduit between two different worlds that have kept growing apart since 2012. Known to have been one of the artisans of the famed “reset” (even if it was once poorly translated when Hillary Clinton first gave her “box” to Sergei Lavrov in 2009), he saw his dreams as a young man coming true when both Russia and the U.S., putting behind thorny issues such as the Iraq war and NATO expansion, were increasingly working together on solving world issues, such as with the signing in Prague in 2010 of New START to limit nuclear weapons. These were the times of President Medvedev, who seemed like a pro-Western moderniser, even if a cautious one. There were solid majorities in both countries convinced that the possibilities for further cooperation were only the natural way forward. Russia was popular in America and America was popular in Russia. Such a description seems today hard to believe so the picture changed rapidly and deeply from a nascent partnership to a state of intense rivalry, even if Russia is not the Soviet Union of old. This book is about understanding the road traveled from the viewpoint of a man – a true believer – who had always believed in working with Russia and came to be thoroughly disheartened as he hoped to crown his long life passion and cement the reset process.

Before going into the Obama period and the “reset” and its subsequent setbacks, McFaul covers the 1991-2008 period so we get a refresher of the major events of the period. He first goes into the first elections in the late 1980s that changed the Soviet Union forever and introduced figures that became familiar such as Yeltsin, the boss of the Communist Party in Russia but also the soon to be known nationalist firebrand, Zhirinovsky and many others. We go rapidly through the August 1991 coup and the official and technical demise of the Soviet apparatus starting on December 31, 1991. Interestingly, he goes as an NDI representative into early exchanges with “our new Russian partners” that started revealing even then their frustrations with the U.S. focus on democratic consolidation or how the West, and not the Russians, knew what was best for them – a feature hat those of us who were in the trenches of transition (*) did not realise the impact then. He then goes on through Yegor Gaidar’s economic liberalisation reforms (known as sick therapy by his detractors) accompanied by voucher privatisations creating the most massive transfer of public wealth to individuals (a few it turned out, with the rise of the Oligarchs, underpinned by corrupted system that tainted Russia like an original sin). Then came the replacement of Gaidar by the more conservative Chernomyrdin, the December 2013 electoral backlash and the “fascist” threat embodied by the misnamed Liberal Democrats (LDRP) of Zhirinovsky, the elections of December 1995 and the rise of Genady Zyuganov’s Communist Party, the appearance of the nationalist General Lebed and resulting weakening of the Lib-Dems, the presidential elections of 1996 and rise of the top Oligarchs though the loan for “campaign funding programme” and their increasing control of Russian natural assets and media and then the deliquescence of the Yeltsin era, helped by the Russian financial crisis of August 1998 with more confrontational matters such as the bombing of Milosevic’s Serbia and the second “invasion” of Chechnya in 1999. In December 2000, Yeltsin resigned as President making McFaul struggling as to his reasons, most likely linked to cementing the future election of his unknown prime minister, Vladimir Putin, he’d oaf the Security Council, before being head of the KGB rising as a low level Kremlin bureaucrat who had been out of job following Sobchak’s reelection loss as Mayor of St Petersburg.

The nineties were an epic time for Russia, which McFaul describes well. There was a focus of form and not substance in the nascent democratic process and clearly the supporting West, while knowing that, wanted to preserve the gains of a Cold War victory and not let Russia slip into chaos, which was very possible, or an adversarial stance. This cautious Western approach, crafted on the way, allowed for side effects that with time became major events fraught with systemic corruption in reshaping a country like the transfer of Russian state assets to so-called oligarchs first though the voucher privatisation process, which they ended up managing artfully and then the 1996 loan for shares programme to allow a very embattled Yeltsin to be reelected. The West was not happy about these developments but made what it perceived to be the less bad choice, still supporting Russian authorities, in order to preserve stability at a time when the U.S. and the world were largely basking in a strong economic environment devoid of major political or military threats. It is therefore difficult, as McFaul points out, to take a view on whether Yeltsin had a positive or negative impact on its country depending on a number of features. Some of the constitutional changes that took place and strengthened the presidency, made for Yeltsin, certainly help Putin to keep strengthening executive power in Russia once President.

Putin’s era is seen by McFaul as Russia’s Thermidor (the French revolutionary month that put a decisive end to the era known as “the Terror” in the mid-1790s). He had been a carrer KGB professional with postings in East Germany, notably in Dresden where he saw first end of the collapse of the Soviet Union, an event that deeply marked him. He kept deepening market reforms with debt restructuring, a 13% flat tax rate on individual income (to make sure fraud was erased) and Andrei Illarionov, his chief economic adviser and his team were both pro-market and pro- Western liberals. He even considered the possibility of Russia joining NATO when asked by Western media, though this was never seriously tested. While pursuing reforms and staying nominally close to the West, Putin decided within year in office to control the media, forcing in exile moguls Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky, the latter his godfather in Russian politics. He later arrested Russia’s richest man and owner of Yukos on fraud charges as he was getting into more support for NGOs and independent candidates in the Russia electoral process. While those developments took place, the focus of the U.S. was squarely on post-9- 11 matters and soon the Iraq war triggering a benign neglect for Russia which was not deemed to really matter anymore (Colin Power thought that Putin “had restored a sense of order in the country and moved in a democratic way” which surprised the expert McFaul). George W. Bush having met Putin early on in his presidency claimed he had been able to get a sense of his soul and that all was fine, making his own foreign policy team and Dick Cheney’s, as well as experts like McFaul, worry that he might have missed that Putin had been train to lie (after he expressed his doubts in the New York Times, McFaul was never reinvented by GW to provide his views on Russia). 9-11 definitely led to a warming up of the U.S.-Russia relationship as Putin was quick to support the U.S. and offered assistance in many areas such as the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, intelligence sharing on terrorist networks ad support opening U.S. bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. In spite of some conflicts on missile defence and the ABM treaty, cooperation was deemed to at the level of WW2 by Igor Ivanov, Putin’s foreign minister. GW in turn was calling Putin an “ally”, a term not used for a Kremlin leader since FDR did. While the U.S. rejoiced about this new state of affairs, they still admitted Bulgaria, the three Baltic states, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to join the alliance which they did formally in 2004. While the initial invitation did not break the relation (the Baltic states were a particular strain), the Iraq invasion broke the camel’s back as Russia was not consulted and Putin thought that such an initiative with likely drastic consequences on te stability of the Middle East would have been better handled (with hindsight he was right even if his motivations were Russian-focused). McFaul rightly states that this issue of not being involved in global affairs went back to the core of Putin’s grievances that Russia had been relegated to a secondary, if that, power which only mattered due to a remaining nuclear arsenal. This was all about regaining respect and been back at the table, which will explain other developments in later years. Then on top of Iraq occurred two revolutions, Pink in Georgia in November 2003 and Orange in Ukraine 2004, where the West, and the U.S. in particular, was seen as the winner behind the scenes while Russia was the loser given its proximity to those countries, former Soviet brethren, that went markedly closer to the other side. The Orange revolution made Putin more anti-American in his rhetorics and policies, marking a clear shift away from any cooperation with the West. While McFaul points out that the six-day war between Russia and Georgia (thankfully limited as Tbilissi was not seized) of August 2008 remains a point of contention as to who started it (not for him and most observers), it was clearly a way for Russia to reassert its power in the Near Abroad and restarts counting as a great power.

McFaul who joined the Obama campaign after Tony Lake and Stanford undergrad pal Susan Rice asked him to (the latter in typical campus mode: “Get your shit together”) started to organise Russian briefings for the campaign team on a subject that nobody cared about – until Georgia August 2008 came around. America started to react with more criticism to Putin’s Russia and allowed for a carefully crafted policy towards Russia. As Obama phrased it “Improved relations with Russia should not be the goal of U.S. policy but a possible strategy for achieving American security and economic objectives in dealing with Russia”. The multi-facetted reset button was on its way, ready to be pushed, though with awareness that Russia actually mattered and could be disruptive to world affairs (there is a long chapter about all the facets which make for good reading). MacFaul goes deeply on his constant fight for democratisation and struggle to push forward “universal values” in Russia as he was a member of the Obama Administration. We are taken to the first and last Moscow summit where New START, denying Iran the nom, missile defence cooperation, repealing of Jackson-Vanick…all of which are covered by a few chapters that sound a bit technical at times, if of course very key in terms of policy- making. One part “burgers and spies” depicts what could be an episode of the Americans with spies or “illegals” being posted in America.

In March 2012, Vladimir Putin came back as President, having taken a break as prime mister for four years and somehow adapting if not rewriting the constitution. McFaul had arrived in Moscow, taking his Ambassadorial post, two months before Putin’s return as President (even if it is argued that he never ceased been one). While McFaul’s version is extremely valuable, it should never be forgotten, as we in the West may have in the 1990s, the deep shock and humiliation represented by the loss of Empire and relegation of Russia as a secondary power, all while the West and particularly the U.S. likely lacked consideration for that traumatic experience and focused on teaching Russia how to be a market. I will let you enjoy the rest of the book, which I found a bit boring as McFaul was too much of an aunt and less of a principal, displaying too much of an NGO ethos in the job.

The rest and doubtless crux of McFaul’s book is about his ambassadorial travails in Moscow and his engaged and complex relationship with the Kremlin and the Putin Administration especially following the Crimean and Ukrainian developments of 2014. This is the climax of his enjoyable if at times slightly long and personal account-settling book of what could have been titled the right man at the wrong times and location which I will let you discover without letting the Siberian cat out of the bag of tricks.

Warmest Regards,

Serge


(*) I was at EBRD at the time – the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the public international financial development institution set up in early 1991 to facilitate “market transition” in the former Soviet sphere. While my Russian experience was limited to one investment due to most of my focus on Central Europe, my ultimate boss (and later unwitting mentor) and I concurred only a couple of months ago that we were very “naive” during those days and, I think, when it came to Russia, oblivious to the traumas of loss of empire and their impact to come, so much the world in the nineties seemed naturally rosy and can-do-no- wrong unipolar to us, leading to a benign and victory-based arrogance, devoid of understanding of local history, in terms of leading the way. While busy on ensuring that our Western model took roots, we were also oblivious to the rise of the oligarchic class in Russia and to some extent throughout the region and the rampant corruption and illicit control of assets that went with it (and is at times totally forgotten locally in some countries, even part of the EU, as now seen as “old money”).


Serge Desprat- June 2018 (Prague)

The Retreat of Western Liberalism – Edward Luce

7-6-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I would like to talk to you about the importance of Edward Luce’s “The Retreat of Western Liberalism” that was published a year ago in the midst of the start of the Trump administration simply as it led me to wish to defend those very Western values however small, not to say ludicrous, my vantage point. I actually came to set up this initiative of book review and awareness because of Ed’s book in the fist place, so much it was a clarion call for the defence of “who we are”. As you know, Ed is the former Washington DC Bureau Chief of the FT and its current DC columnist and commentator – not a restful job these days – whom you can read every Thursday on the FT’s page 9 (I also recommend his early April “Lunch with the FT” with Anthony “The Smooch” Scaramucci which is simply the stuff of legend, as some of you may know). In many ways, Ed, with a few others, has been the keeper of the fire that still lets that city shining on the hill. I immediately felt close to him given our European roots transcended by our Transatlantic affinity and a certain belief that America is not a country but a state of mind.  As you know the whole FT team, with writers like Simon Kuper, Gideon Rachman and so many others, has been at the printed media’s forefront of maintaining sanity in our troubled world and times along with other publications like the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker and The Economist, only to name a few. 

The Retreat of Western Liberalism is both the mother and the most important of all books dealing with the recent rise of populism. Rather than being academic, it is very lively and full of unusual and fascinating analysis and statistics as to why the Western world has gone into its most populist phase in the 21st Century, reaching a stage unseen since the 1930s. Ed’s book dissects the ways some political parties have repositioned themselves or set themselves up to seek disenfranchised voters and offering them simple answers to complex issues, stressing that the elites and the “system” have always failed them in a conspiracy in which traditional news media were always complicit. His book is divided in four parts: The first going through the integration of the global economy and the radical impact on our Western economies. The second detailing the resulting degeneration of Western politics and how scapegoats are targeted by the losers of the economic mutations, themselves led by a new form of untraditional politicians. The third part dealing with some of the key implications of the relatively declining U.S. and Western hegemony. The final section offering remedies all of us can provide if we value individual liberty and wish to preserve the kind of society that allows it to flourish. Clearly this book would not have seen the light if Donald Trump had not won the White House (even if Brexit was lurking around). While always written with great fairness it is amazing that everything that Ed covers is more than valid one year later so much real life has exceeded the worst fiction that could have been imagined. You will enjoy and value this book as it also offers hope that nothing is inevitable and that individuals can have an impact to correct wrongs and ensure that civilisational “building block” values perdure. It made me think that “we” indeed make our future as we do our bed and as my countryman, Jules Romains, would have said: We simply need “des hommes de bonne volonté” to do so (men of good will and, as he wrote in the early 1900s, I am sure he would have also said today women of good will).  

The book is clearly a first step. There are others, that have been explored and could make a difference, for those who would and could go from words to deeds. I will be happy to discuss this matter if and when, though for now I just want to recommend the enjoyable read of  “The Retreat of Western Liberalism” as a master game changer on understanding the topic of our times.  

Warmest regards,

Serge

 

Serge Desprat- June 6th, 2018 (Prague)