The Pursuit of Happiness (Part Three)

(Editor’s note: This is the third and final segment in a three part series.  The first segment traced the pursuit of happiness to Thomas Jefferson, author of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, outlining Alexander Hamilton’s financial plan for capitalism.  The second segment explored Hamilton’s controversial methods and the basis of opposition, which also began with Jefferson.  ...)

While capitalism may have achieved a monopolistic grip over Western Civilization, scarcely can it be said that Western Civilization maintains such sway over the pursuit of happiness.  Or the ways of human nature.  It should come as little surprise, then, that criticism of Hamilton’s financial plan, ominous and foreboding as it was, could well have been predicted.

An ordinary citizen may recognize the same moral in a parallel story from the realm of Eastern Civilization.  More specifically, ancient Taoist thought also addresses the workings of human nature, dwelling in its unity.  Therein lay the same timeless, uncontroverted truths, offering merely a hint of the opposition attacks Hamilton’s plan would later face.

Cracking the Safe

For security against robbers who snatch purses, rifle luggage, and crack safes,

One must fasten all property with ropes, lock it up with locks, bolt it with bolts.

This (for property owners) is elementary good sense.

But when a strong thief comes along he picks up the whole lot,

Puts it on his back, and goes on his way with only one fear:

That ropes, locks and bolts may give way.

Thus what the world calls good business is only a way

To gather up the loot, pack it, make it secure

In one convenient load for the more enterprising thieves.

Who is there, among those called smart,

Who does not spend his time amassing loot

For a bigger robber than himself?

Taoist thought is also consistent with its Western counterpart in acknowledging the unfortunate fact of life that the world values money, reputation, long life.  Similarly, what the world counts as joy are health and bodily comforts, good food, beautiful things to look at.  Misfortune involves the opposite: lack of money, bodily discomfort, labor, no chance to get your fill of the finer things.  This concern for happiness creates anxiety and makes life unbearable.

The rich make life intolerable, driving themselves in order to get more and more money which they cannot really use.  In so doing they are alienated from themselves, and exhaust themselves in their own service as though they were the slaves of others.

The ambitious run day and night in pursuit of honor, constantly in anguish about the success of their plans, dreading the miscalculation that may wreck everything.  Thus, they are alienated from themselves, exhausting their real life in service of the shadow created by their insatiable hope.

Taoist thought teaches us that happiness is illusory, inasmuch as we as mere mortals are destined to die some day.  And so, we tend to expend all of our energies worrying, obsessed about it, trying to do what we can to delay this particular eventuality.  We don’t live in the present, where life is to be lived.  Instead, we squander the present, living in a precarious state of worry regarding a future, over which we have little control.

By contrast to the rich or ambitious man, or his counterpart the poor man,

Take the case of the minister who conscientiously and uprightly opposes an unjust decision of his king!  Some say, ‘Tell the truth, and if the King will not listen, let him do what he likes.  You have no further obligation.’

On the other hand, Tzu Shu continued to resist the unjust policy of his sovereign.  He was consequently destroyed.  But if he had not stood up for what he believed to be right, his name would not be held in honor.

So there is the question, Shall the course he took be called “good” if, at the same time, it was fatal to him?

I cannot tell if what the world considers “happiness” is happiness or not.  All I know is that when I consider the way they go about attaining it, I see them carried away headlong, grim and obsessed, in the general onrush of the human herd, unable to stop themselves or to change their direction.  All the while they claim to be just on the point of attaining happiness.

In the end, as with most things, it is supposed that the beauty of the pursuit of happiness lies in the eyes of the beholder.  Is there a higher purpose than profit?

-Michael D’Angelo

The Pursuit of Happiness (Part Two)

(Editor’s note: This is the second segment in a three part series.  The first segment traced happiness to Thomas Jefferson’s 1776 Declaration of Independence.  It outlined Alexander Hamilton’s vision in implementing a financial system of capitalism for the republic with the new constitution.)

Yes, Hamilton’s plan conceived a new class of speculative wealth and money-making, created out of thin air and to be endorsed by the full faith and credit of the US government.  Members of Congress, as well as the bankers and speculators, all more or less positioned on the inside, were the earliest plan subscribers and beneficiaries.  By and through its undertaking the new federal government created a system of preference for the so called moneyed class over the remaining classes of society that were not moneyed.

Nevertheless, understanding that this model had achieved unsurpassed economic dominance on the world stage through the British, Hamilton’s financial plan placed the new nation upon a solid economic foundation.  Moreover, the plan placed the new nation on a course for more than two centuries worth of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity for the masses of ordinary citizens.  It certainly turned out to be a wise decision --- for empire.

But, almost immediately upon enactment, Hamilton’s financial plan was the subject of intense criticism and attack.  On the one hand, there could be little doubt that it was a practical plan.  The nation needed a stable, secure banking system, without which the established European powers would supply neither loans nor credit.  It was also expedient.  Its proponents pointed for validation to a proven model.

But on the other hand, it was self-serving, Hamilton being a resident of New York with a multitude of personal and professional connections in the financial arena.  It unfairly and disproportionately rewarded Northern bankers at the expense of Southern farmers, thereby heightening sectional differences.  It created a preference for two distinct economic classes: the haves – and have nots.

It may come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson himself, the Secretary of State in President Washington’s cabinet, was the primary objector to what he viewed as Hamilton’s perversion of the idyllic pursuit of happiness.  But his objection had little to do either with numbers, economics or speculation.

According to Jefferson, the essence of the pursuit of happiness commenced with the removal of all forms of arbitrary, artificial or hereditary distinctions, influences or preconceived ideas.  The desire was to attain full, unencumbered intellectual and religious freedom of the mind, unconstrained by previous efforts to set authoritative delineation using lenses and filters.  Absent these external influences and thus empowered, the mind would exist in a completely and intellectually free state: to master its environment and attain its natural potentialities.  Central was the belief in the improvability of the human mind and the limitless progress of human knowledge.

The author of the document which set forth that “all men are created equal” viewed with consternation a plan which would not treat all men equally under the law.  Such a plan violated the unfettered freedom of the individual citizen to pursue happiness.  It flowed from principles adverse to liberty, accomplished by creating an influence of the US Treasury over members of Congress, inherently susceptible to corruption.  With the grant of inherent privileges artificially conferred upon certain of its benefactors, the plan tended to narrow the government into fewer hands and approximate it to a hereditary form.

In a later period, Andrew Jackson would declare war on and victory over Hamilton’s federal banking system.  In the throes of battle, Jackson astutely observe that “If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning.”

For his own part, Theodore Roosevelt had an interesting insight as to what was happiness:

But for unflagging interest and enjoyment, a household of children, if things go reasonably well, certainly makes all other forms of success and achievement lose their importance by comparison.  It may be true that he travels farthest who travels alone; but the goal thus reached is not worth reaching.  And as for a life deliberately devoted to pleasure as an end – why, the greatest happiness is the happiness that comes as a by-product of striving to do what must be done, even though sorrow is met in the doing.

(Next week’s third and final segment will explore The Pursuit of Happiness from the realm of Eastern Civilization, dating to a time period centuries prior to the American founding fathers.)

-Michael D’Angelo

The Pursuit of Happiness (Part One)

 (Editor’s note: This is the first segment in a three part series.)

The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the one document which best identifies the American spirit among the nation’s of the world and is consequently what makes us unique.  The 1776 writing has been aptly described as “an expression of the American mind,” as painted by its author, Thomas Jefferson.

In pertinent part it states that among the “certain and inalienable rights” which all men possess are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Interestingly, however, the word “happiness” is without definition.  Neither are the words “property,” the ownership thereof, or “bank” anywhere mentioned.  Nor is a particular economic system contemplated either here or in the US Constitution that was subsequently enacted in 1789.  What, then, is the pursuit of happiness?

The answer to that question in the annals of American History begins with the figure of Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury serving under then-President George Washington.  Importantly, like Franklin before him, Hamilton was also a superb student of human nature, even going so far as to elevate its status to that of its own “science.”  Hamilton approached and studied history to determine the nature of the laws which controlled human affairs, seeking to extract a moral and thereby useful lesson, to chart the course of human events.  His later efforts earned him his deserving place on the $10 bill.

Hamilton saw the “pursuit of happiness” in the form of the physical greatness of the state as being above the happiness of its citizens.  To the extent that the two were at odds, Hamilton would choose the former, since

there was no hope of combining order with liberty until the people were prevented from giving free reign to their passions.  The people sober might be trusted, but when they became drunk --- and history proved that they went on such binges with distressing frequency --- they behaved like tyrants.  It was the peculiar merit of the Federal (US) Constitution … that under its benign auspices the people, even when they lost possession of their faculties, were constrained from running amuck.

His highly controversial financial plan was set forth on the successful British model of capitalism.  It specified, among other things, the creation of a central banking system under one supreme National Bank.  This bank was to be in corporation form, chartered under the authority of the new federal government of the US (today seen in the form of the Federal Reserve, headed by Benjamin Bernanke).

Good thing Hamilton was armed with a keen understanding regarding certain predictable patterns of human nature which did not change over time.  In this instance, knowledge was power.  Hamilton well knew that the plan alone, sound as it may have been, was insufficient to guarantee its passage in the republic with the new constitution.  Something more was needed, some human incentive.

And so Hamilton used the forces of human nature, in their uninterrupted forms both good and bad as they were observed to exist, to successfully implement and solidify his economic plan.  Noting perhaps the greatest human vice to be greed, he surmised that if this passion could be harnessed in service to the state, “the nation was on its way to power, opulence and greatness.”  So he incentivized the speculative interest, prevalent on the dark side of human nature and especially among the moneyed class, to provide the support vital to its success.

(The second segment in this three part series will further explore Hamilton’s controversial methods for implementing the system, as well as the basis of firm opposition, which began with Jefferson.  What did the author of the Declaration of Independence consider to be the pursuit of happiness?)

-Michael D'Angelo

The First Lesson of US History

Did we have to attain higher education than kindergarten to learn the first lesson of US History?

The first lesson of US History comes by way of the classic 1966 movie, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, starring Clint Eastwood, among others, in one of his early, featured roles.

The setting is the state of Texas, during the Civil War early 1860s.  Texas, as some may recall, was a slave state in the fledgling Confederate States of America.  For the better part of the movie, Clint Eastwood (the “Good”) and Tuco, his Mexican counterpart (the “Ugly”, played by Eli Wallach),  engage in a systematic series of Western, small town robberies.

The script did not deviate from the following.  Tuco would get himself arrested for the commission of a serious capital offense, which called for his hanging in the public square.  Customarily, the town residents would come out to witness the hanging.  While the noose was being prepared, and the prisoner brought forth, Eastwood would rob all of the vacant homes.  Just before the noose would tighten, Eastwood would appear on horseback.  With his excellent aim, he would shoot through the rope from a distance, freeing Tuco.  Simultaneously, Eastwood would ride through the square, displaying perfect timing to snatch him up and ride off.  The two would repeat the sequence in the next town.

Although very different and caring little for the welfare of the other, each is compelled to keep the other alive, because each has half a secret.  Together, they know that a large stash of money, containing exactly 8 bags of gold, is buried in a cemetery.  Eastwood knows the name of the grave under which the stash is buried, and Tuco knows the name of the cemetery.  But, neither knows the other’s secret.  Lacking a corresponding bond of trust, each guards his half of the secret with his life.  A third player, a corrupt Union Army officer (the “Bad”, played by Lee Van Cleef), sheds his military uniform for civilian clothes and secretly follows the two for what he hopes will be his own private payoff.

Toward the movie’s climax, Tuco finally gives up his share of the secret, reluctantly disclosing the name of the cemetery.  The three then come together at the cemetery circle, near the grave site where the gold is buried.  But since Eastwood will not voluntarily divulge the name on the grave, they engage in a final stand off.  After some tense moments that seem like hours, Eastwood draws first, killing Van Cleef (the “Bad”).  Eastwood then admits to Tuco that he had secretly removed the bullets from Tuco’s gun the previous night, which had rendered harmless Tuco’s stand off threat.

Viewers are left with the “Good” and the “Ugly”.  With a loaded gun, the entire loot at his disposal and Tuco absent any weapon and defenseless, Eastwood now faces a moral dilemma.  Does he take all the gold, and run?  In the process, what does he do with Tuco?  Kill him?  Wound him?  If he allows Tuco to live, does he leave Tuco his full share?  Or, does he leave just a portion, in Eastwood’s sole but arbitrary discretion?

It is an interesting dilemma, not vastly different from the one which faced the early Old World European settler to the continent of North America, upon facing his brethren, the American Indian.

In the end, Eastwood rides off into the sunset, with his own 4 bags of gold securely mounted to his saddle bags.  He leaves Tuco stranded and thirsty in the sweltering Texas sun, without a horse, and with a difficult situation in which to make his way back to civilization.  But, importantly, Eastwood leaves Tuco with his entire share, fully 4 gold bags.  For, when one thinks about it, how much of the gold do any of us really need?

The New World was a land of plenty, so called, but its historical relationship with the native American Indian culture was marked by contact, conquest and catastrophe, the three “C’s”.  Simple contact was the predominant destructive force.  The Old World germs to which the settler had become immune effectively wiped out 90% of the indigenous Indian population, whose systems were not similarly protected.  Second was the idea of forced “removal” of the Indians from their lands.  And, of course, there were mass killings.  But, this was the side show.

We all learned the first lesson of US History by the time of kindergarten.  There is more than enough to go around.  The lesson, of course, is to share.

-Michael D’Angelo

A Speckled Ax Was Best

The analysis of our imperfect human behavior tends to be perplexing and sobering, yet predictable nonetheless.  Are there other recurring patterns, both good and bad, which can be readily identified and typed?

Among Ben Franklin’s many varied endeavors included a fascinating attempt to arrive at moral perfection.  In his reading, he had enumerated and catalogued 13 moral virtues.  Arranged in order of importance, the previous acquisition of some perhaps facilitating the acquisition of others, they were as follows:

1.       TEMPERANCE.

Eat not to Dullness.

Drink not to Elevation.

2.       SILENCE.

Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself.

3.       ORDER.

Let all Things have their Places.  Let each Part of your Business have its Time.

4.       RESOLUTION.

Resolve to perform what you ought.  Perform without fail what you resolve.

5.       FRUGALITY.

Make no Expense but to do good to others or yourself:  i.e., Waste nothing.

6.       INDUSTRY.

Lose not time.  --  Be always employ’d in something useful.  --  Cut off all unnecessary actions.

7.       SINCERITY.

Use no hurtful deceit.

8.       JUSTICE.

Wrong none, by doing Injuries or omitting the Benefits that are your Duty.

9.       MODERATION.

Avoid Extreams.  Forbear resenting Injuries so much as you think they deserve.

10.    CLEANLINESS.

Tolerate no Uncleanness in Body, Cloaths or Habitation.

11.    TRANQUILITY.

Be not disturbed at Trifles, or at Accidents common or unavoidable.

12.    CHASTITY.

Rarely use Venery but for Health or Offspring; Never to Dullness, Weakness, or the Injury of your own or another’s Peace or Reputation.

13.    HUMILITY.

Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

Franklin’s intention was to attempt, systematically, a plan for self-examination, seeking somewhat ambitiously to acquire all the virtues at once.  But he quickly judged that this would be an impractical distraction.  So, he lowered the bar, beginning to focus his attention on just one virtue at a time, in the arranged order.  When the first had been mastered, he would proceed to another, until he had successfully gone through all 13.  He allotted 1 week to each venture, and consequently he could complete a full course in 13 weeks, and 4 courses in a year.

He continued the plan for some time, with occasional intermissions, achieving satisfaction in seeing his faults diminish.  But, he was also alarmed to some degree in learning that he found himself so much fuller of faults than he had imagined.  Business, travel and a multiplicity of affairs also interfered, however, stretching a single 13 week course to a full year, or longer.  Strength and progress in one virtue would cause a relapse in another, vexing him to consider giving up the attempt altogether.

In the end, he found that his undertaking was akin to a likeness of a man, who brings his ax to the grind stone to be sharpened.  As the wheel ground on, the ax had become speckled, that is, very sharp and shiny at one turn, yet a bit duller nor as bright at another.  No matter how much the wheel ground on, and the ax turned to a point of physical fatigue, the speckled ax still looked the same.  He concluded that although he had fallen short, he was better and happier than had he not attempted it, and contented that perhaps a speckled ax was best.

-Michael D’Angelo

An Important Lesson in the Most Useful "Science of Human Nature" (Part Two)

(Note: This is the second and concluding segment in a two part series. The first segment sketched the outline of an important lesson in the most useful "science of human nature" through what some say is the greatest story ever told. Christ’s provocative ride into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday posed a potentially serious problem to Roman authority. The dilemma logically devolved to the local Jewish authorities.)

How does the story of Christ perfectly demonstrate an important lesson in the most useful "science of human nature?"   How does it equally demonstrate the necessary characteristics of leadership?

In a nutshell, the dilemma for the Jewish authorities was this. If Christ could lead a rebellion, which would culminate in the overthrow of Roman authority with their assistance, then they could conveniently ride Christ’s coattails. Their own authoritative status within the new power structure would remain intact, maybe even increase. However, should the rebellion be crushed, then their fate would certainly be the same. The stakes could not have been higher for them. So, they questioned Christ.

“Where is your army?” the Pharisees and Sadducees wanted to know, more than just out of mere curiosity.

“I have no army” was Christ’s succinct reply. “My kingdom is not of this earth. My kingdom is the kingdom of heaven.” This response was dubious, failing to inspire confidence in the Pharisees and Sadducees, who could not rest easily.

In the interim, the devil would tempt Christ, offering anything he desired to reject his Father’s plan for man’s salvation. Rejecting this supreme temptation, in what can only be labeled a sheer test of will, Christ continued: “I will tear down the temple in one day, and re-build it in three.” Christ was, of course, referring to his upcoming crucifixion, death and resurrection, to follow during the course of events over the ensuing week. But, the Pharisees and Sadducees were yet to know this.

They quickly summed up the earthly situation and concluded that Christ was probably out of his mind. The Pharisees and Sadducees were certainly reasonable men and made a fateful decision.  They said they must choose the military power of Rome over the popular yet enigmatic and army-less Christ, “for the sake of the nation.”  Left unsaid was the fact that they were simply acting reasonably in their own best interest..

In human terms, the decision was not difficult. They were not going to do something silly like risk their exalted place in Jewish society. They were not going down with the ship.  In reality, they were sacrificing Christ to preserve their own status. It was convenient. It was expedient. It’s what human beings typically do. It's an important lesson in the most useful science of human nature.  Pilate would not interfere with an internal decision of the Jewish people.

Christ was also aware that one of his own 12 disciples, Judas, accepted money to betray him. Moreover, when the heat was really turned up, the situation still fluid, Peter, the rock upon which Christ would subsequently build his Christian church, denied knowing him on 3 separate occasions in rapid sequence. After all, Peter had reasonably concluded that Christ’s fate would be his as well, had he simply admitted knowing him. Again, here was an example of a reasonable man, acting reasonably in his own best interest. The rest, as they say, is history.

But then there was that remarkable close: “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Christ did not blame them, as we mere mortals are prone to do. He forgave them instead. To understand what leadership is, the ordinary citizen doesn’t have to look beyond the example of Christ: deny yourself, to advance a just cause, by the example of your actions.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it?

-Michael D’Angelo

An Important Lesson in the Most Useful "Science of Human Nature" (Part One)

(Editor's note: This is the first segment in a new two part series which begins here today.)

The constancy of human nature provides authority for the notion that it must be classified as its own science. Viewed in the light of predictability, human nature rises to the level of a most useful science. And among the recurring patterns of predictable human behavior, both good and bad, the most useful science of human nature contains an important lesson.

My law partner, Mr. Blythe, frequently says that one can expect reasonable men to act reasonably in their own best interest. This is a simple statement.  However, it is rendered meaningless, absent some context.  In fact, when the message is repeated over and over from the same voice, one naturally begins to tune it out. But in light of Harry Truman’s experiences regarding the constancy of human nature, this got me to thinking.

Wasn't there a familiar story about an expectation of reasonable men acting reasonably in their own best interest?  Yes!  And some say it is the greatest story ever told, the story of Jesus Christ. As the story goes, Christ voluntarily chose to forego his immortality to take on human form, that is, an imperfect form. His purpose was to provide ordinary people a working model as to how to set the main priorities of human existence.

We don’t have a lot of detail on Christ’s day to day life, unfortunately.  But one scene depicts Christ in the temple.  There he overturns the tables of the money changers who had infiltrated its halls, casting them out with a rare display of anger.  It seems that economics had gained an undesirable preference over morality.

"Love one another" is the main message I seem to recall from my old Catholic grammar school days. And, coupled with that idea, the greatest gift a human can give to another is to sacrifice one’s own life for that of another. But the greatest story ever told also contains a very interesting and important message about how the other humans in the story behaved themselves.

The theme from the original Broadway musical, Jesus Christ Superstar, illustrates the basic story. Christ’s popular following and the threat to the authority of Rome that it represented reached a critical mass upon his riding into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Whether Christ meant it or not, the act was seen as an act of extreme provocation.

For the Jewish people, who were Roman subjects, the physical protection of Rome’s economic and military might could be relied upon, only if they adhered to two simple rules. Those rules were, first, pay your taxes (hence the phrase “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s”), and second, don’t rebel. The violation of either was sure to bring trouble.

In Christ’s case, his ride to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday would surely rouse the masses and thereby constitute a clear violation of Rome’s second rule. And so, the Jewish people had to confront a serious problem, sooner rather than later, or face the reality that the Romans would solve the problem for them.

The names Pharisees and Sadducees were the fancy old terms for the lawyers and priests of the day. Together, they constituted a powerful leadership body that claimed greater moral authority and righteousness than the rest of the Jewish society of Christ’s time. Setting themselves up as models of what was right and “godly,” they were hyper-zealous to preserve and protect the name of God on earth and his laws. While we may detect the obvious strain of self-interest in this arrangement, they did not see themselves as bad people.

And so the problem of Christ logically devolved to them.

(Next week's second segment analyzes how they utilized an important lesson in the most useful "science of human nature" as the means of efficient resolution.)

-Michael D'Angelo

Human Nature Does Not Change (Part Three)

(Editor's note:  The previous segments in this three part series introduced readers to why we bother to study history and discussed Harry Truman’s self-education --- how he came to concentrate on the workings, the continuity and the consistency of human nature.  The third and final segment identifies the formula for understanding history and its value in understanding the course of current events.)

The formula was actually quite simple.  Imperfect and inexact, but nonetheless an efficient means to an end.  Essentially, while the names, the dates and the places may change, as well as the arbitrary lines on a map, national boundaries and the reign of great empires, human nature does not change.  So, if one were to study, comprehend and become proficient with the workings of human nature, one would be able to juxtapose the names, the dates and the places from one era to another, and pretty well figure out not only the course but also the direction of events.

America loved Harry Truman’s honesty and candor above all things.  Are these ingredients present in our elected leaders over the last 50 years or so?  America also loved Harry Truman’s role as a perpetual underdog, who always seemed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and staunchly defended the rights of the ordinary citizen.

“Give ‘em hell, Harry” was the familiar phrase used by the people, to show their support for his unbending principles.  In fact, Truman didn’t see how it made much sense for one to enter politics and not be the proponent of the common man.  To be sure, Truman was known to review applications for appointments to West Point from Missouri boys.  Bypassing folders thick with recommendations from judges, state legislators, mayors, etc., he would favor an application consisting of a single page, written in pencil on a sheet of cheap, rough paper.

Lastly, Harry Truman seemed to know his place in the natural order and that his role, although very important, was essentially fleeting.  He never considered himself to be the President.  Rather, he viewed himself as the trustee of the Office of the President of the United States.  When asked the secret of his success, he cited to Oliver Wendell Holmes, a soldier in the Civil War, a Supreme Court Justice, among other things.  Old Holmes answered: “The secret of my success is that at a very early age I discovered that I am not God.”  And, similarly, Truman said that he never forgot where he came from, and would go back to: Independence, Missouri.

All Truman had to recollect was the story of Cincinnatus, the Roman hero, who was compelled to give up his plow when called into service to save the empire in its time of dire need.  When Truman’s work was completed in 1952, successfully, the man who arguably held the most power ever concentrated in any one single man to that moment in history, like Cincinnatus before him, voluntarily gave up the power, put down the sword and returned to his farm country origins.

Harry Truman’s experiences regarding the constancy of human nature teaches us that human nature is its own science, on merit standing upon its own foundation.  Many would agree that it is a most useful science.  Among the recurring patterns of predictable human behavior, both good and bad, there is perhaps one important lesson.  We’ll journey there next.

-Michael D’Angelo

The Only Thing New in the World ... (Part Two)

(Editor's note: This is the second segment in a three part series on why we bother to study history. The first segment introduced readers to Harry Truman, the self-educated president, who came to concentrate on the workings, the continuity and the consistency of human nature.)


Despite his lack of formal education, Truman was one of our nation’s smartest leaders, self taught in the mold of Abraham Lincoln.  Truman had gained his considerable knowledge from a passion to study history.  Even during his presidency, he could be found reading, his library filled only with biography and history.

Like most intelligent people, he criticized lawyers, in that they knew the law but not much of anything else.  “Gotta read your history,” Harry was known to say, for a viewpoint of whatever the present issue happened to be within the context of the bigger picture.  Above all, Truman encouraged the study of the nature of man and the culture and heritage of Western Civilization in general.

This presented another set of clues about human nature.  Truman was proficient in his reading of an old, classic series, entitled Plutarch’s Lives, a bound set of which he possessed from his childhood days.  It is a work of considerable historical importance, arranged to illuminate the common moral virtues or failings of the subjects of the biographies.

The work was written in the late 1st century, and consisted of a series of biographies of famous men.  The surviving work, more commonly known as the Parallel Lives, consists of 23 pairs of biographies, each pair consisting of one Greek and one Roman.

From his reading of history, Truman concluded that what were most striking were its elements of continuity, including, above all, human nature, which had changed little if any through time.

When I was in politics, there would be times when I tried to figure somebody out, and I could always turn to Plutarch, and 9 times out of 10 I’d be able to find a parallel in there.  In 1940, when I was running for re-election in the Senate, there was this big apple grower named Stark trying to beat me.  I’d started him out in politics, but in 1940 he was out to lick me, and I couldn’t figure it out.

But the more I thought about him, the more he reminded me of what Plutarch said about Nero.  I’d done a lot of thinking about Nero.  What I was interested in was how having started as well as he did, he ended up in ruin.  And Plutarch said the start of his troubles was when he began to take his friends for granted and started to buy his enemies.

And I noticed some of those same traits in old Starks.  That’s how I decided I could lick him, and I did, of course.  Nobody thought I could, but I did.

…

But about Plutarch.  It was the same with those old birds in Greece and Rome as it is now.  I told you.  The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.

  

Harry Truman was then deftly suited to apply the lessons learned to the problems of his time - which were in abundance.  One of his favorite lines, “The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know,” was of invaluable assistance to him in dealing with the ominous strongmen of the era.  These were people like Germany’s Adolph Hitler, the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin and China’s Mao Tse-tung, finding similar connections with other despots and historical figures that had come before.

(The formula was really not very complicated.  Next week's third and final segment in our three part series will offer the details...)

-Michael D’Angelo

Why Do We Bother to Study History? (Part One)

(Editor's note: This is the first segment in a three part series.) 


More than a few people have told me they hated history, until they came to relate its relevance to events in their own lives.  Why is the subject of history emphasized as extensively as it is in our K-12 secondary schools?  Why is it maintained as a core discipline in many of the nation’s public universities and most, if not all, of the nation’s elite liberal arts institutions of higher learning?

Why, on the other hand, is history taught so poorly, with an excruciating emphasis on the memorization of reams of facts and figures, absent any particular context or personal relevance?  More simply stated, why do we bother to study history?  What exactly is the point?

Let’s begin with human nature.  I am too young to remember Harry Truman, but the discussion should begin here.  My first connection to the name was as a young boy.  My dad used to refer to my maternal grandfather simply as “Harry S,” because, I was told, grandpa looked like Harry S. Truman.  It seemed that both men were rather short, appeared physically frail, sported closely cropped, gray haircuts, and also wore funny looking top hats.  No matter that my grandfather was of Italian descent, and had come to this country along with millions of other immigrants similarly situated in the early part of the 20^th century.

When my grandfather received this greeting, he just smiled.  For all I knew, my grandfather may have had no idea of who Harry S. Truman was.  Fine, I thought, but just exactly who was Harry S?  My young curiosity was piqued.

My next encounter with Harry Truman was when Chicago, the popular band, recorded a song on one of its albums which was simply called “Harry Truman.”  The song began, “America needs you, Harry Truman / Harry could you please come home.”  Okay, so here was another clue about this guy.

Although I did not understand its meaning then, perhaps it was just a coincidence that the Watergate scandal was about to break, forcing then-President Richard Nixon to resign the presidency in shame.  This was the same Nixon who grew up in the shadow of the infamous Joseph McCarthy, US Senator, R-WI, one of the key proponents of the communist “Red Scare.”  This was the same Nixon who, as Vice President to then-President Dwight Eisenhower, had attempted to label Harry Truman as soft on communism.  As it turned out, it was a futile effort simply to advance Nixon’s own personal cause.

Some may be surprised to learn that Harry Truman was the last American President who did not attend college.  Nor did my grandfather, for that matter.  But, Truman did have some good teachers along the way, perhaps the finest of whom was his mother.  Mattie Truman’s philosophy had been simple.  "You knew right from wrong, you always tried to do right, and you did your best.  That’s all there was to it."

One of Truman’s many biographers described the little farming town of Independence, Missouri, where Truman had grown up, as a town where people live a long time and have long memories.  Moreover, the people there all seemed to have something in common with Truman.  They had character.  Can we say that about the community in which we live?

(The second segment highlights Harry Truman’s self-education and how he came to concentrate on the workings, the continuity and the consistency of human nature.)

-Michael D'Angelo

He Gave Expectations

Should lawmakers be permitted to confer merely expectations? ...

The news brings a familiar story of another corporate bankruptcy, this time of Hostess Brands, the maker of the iconic Twinkies, Sno Balls and Wonder Bread.  The company is hoping to cut costs, working to reach a voluntary agreement with its unions to modify collective bargaining agreements.

In a simplistic view, many ordinary citizens say “It’s all the union’s fault.”  Period.  End of conversation.  The feelings of these ordinary citizens seem to develop on the basis of quick sound bites and talking points picked up on morning television.

How many ordinary citizens understand just how bad things were for industrial workers in America in the days before unions?  Do we know why unions are even necessary, or all the good they have done, and do?  While this is not the time to consider the pros and cons of unions, enough to safely say there are mostly pros.

This ordinary citizen is reminded of a story about the early life of Benjamin Franklin.  Pennsylvania’s governor had promised to lend young Ben money to open his own printing shop.  He was 18 at the time.  The governor further suggested that young Ben travel to London to buy printing materials and arrange for supplies on letters of credit also promised by the governor.

On the strength of these promises, Franklin set off for London, a sea voyage which would take a full 50 days.  But arriving in London, Franklin quickly learned that he had been duped by the governor, who had no credit to give, and summed up the situation thus:

But what shall we think of a Governor’s playing such pitiful Tricks, and imposing so grossly on a poor ignorant Boy!  It was a Habit he had acquired.  He wish’d to please every body; and having little to give, he gave expectations.

Here was a young man who, even at such a tender age, had an extraordinary awareness of the tendencies of human nature.  He would require every morsel to survive in a foreign land.  But not only did Franklin survive, he flourished.  He quickly found work in his field as a printer, working in London for two years.  He knew that it would improve him such that, upon returning to America, he would be able to set up to greater advantage.

His instinct had been correct, and his career subsequently took off.  By age 24, he was named the official printer for Pennsylvania.  And at age 26 came the first publication of his popular Poor Richard’s Almanac, which he considered “a proper Vehicle for conveying Instruction among the common People, who bought scarce any other book.”

Unions obtain their benefits from corporate boardrooms.  After upper management takes a healthy cut up front, it then cares little for the long term.  Give the unions whatever they want.  There’ll never be money to pay down the road anyway.  It is illusory.  On closer inspection, hasn’t management conveyed just expectations?  The same with legislatures and the perks given to so called public sector unions.  Sadly, nothing more than expectations given.

Perhaps unions are but a symptom of the larger problem.  Both corporate boards and legislatures seek increasingly to abdicate responsibility for their own inept conduct.  They look elsewhere other than upon themselves, to unions in this instance, for a ready scapegoat.  It is another familiar lesson of human nature.

Perhaps corporate boards need public governance and legislatures insulation from special interests which tend to corrupt them at plain cost to ordinary citizens.  Should it be unlawful that neither be permitted to give merely expectations?

-Michael D’Angelo

Arrogance and Envy

Why do the masses of ordinary citizens pay such a feverish mind to an international event so seemingly obscure as the royal wedding uniting Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, with Catherine “Kate” Middleton?  What is so special about the dress of Kate’s younger sister and maid of honor, Philippa "Pippa" Middleton, that the multitudes can’t seem to tear their eyes away?

More simply put, why do those from a lower station crave obsession with those who appear to be upon the summits of human life?  After all, it would appear that the advantages of nature or of fortune have contributed very little over the centuries to the promotion of happiness.  Surely neither the splendor of their rank nor the extent of their capacity has often given any just occasion to envy.

To some, apparent superiority has a tendency to incite great designs and even greater imaginations.  But these are naturally susceptible to fatal miscarriages.  To others, the general lot of mankind is misery.  That the misfortunes of those whose eminence draws upon them universal attention have been more carefully recorded should not be a particularly vexing phenomenon.

Perhaps their misfortunes were more carefully recorded only because they were more generally observed.  Perhaps, too, their misfortunes have in reality been only more conspicuous than those of others, but not more frequent, or more severe.

Some barriers are not physical.  Rather, they are psychological.  The human emotion of fear is of the latter variety, used by those in authority to assure conformity to a desired behavior.  Envy is also a very powerful psychological barrier, as is arrogance.  The rich look down from the summit upon the poor with arrogance; the poor, in turn, look up from their lower station on the rich with envy.

During the early days of industrialization in the late 19^th century, Theodore Roosevelt made an astute observation within his analysis of labor-ownership strife and the arrogance of capitalism.  Exhausted from his attempts to balance the competing social forces he sought to mediate, T.R. described the situation thus: “Envy and arrogance are the two opposite sides of the same black crystal.”

To Alphonso X, the Learned, King of Spain, as far back as the 13^th century, general credit is given for having said that “Had I been present at the creation I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe.”  One then might ask: Better ordering to suit whom?  The learned king no doubt had his own happiness in mind.  His own best interests first.  His people’s second.

In what has been labeled “an expression of the American mind,” the 1776 Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson, states that among the “certain and inalienable rights” which all men possess are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  The word “happiness,” however, is without definition.  Neither is the word “property,” the ownership thereof, or “bank” anywhere mentioned.  Nor is a particular economic system contemplated in the 1789 US Constitution.

What, then, is the pursuit of happiness?  To answer this question, the ordinary citizen should recognize that arrogance and envy are antagonists in the predictable “science of human nature.”  This vantage point is provocative yet neutral.


-Michael D’Angelo