We easily can forget why the central objective of Unity08 attracts us in the first place. We can easily be predisposed by our beliefs and prejudices or distracted through contentiousness to carry healthy skepticism to an unhealthy extreme. It would be wise to remember that to end up where we wish, we must make a start toward that end rather than fold our arms and refuse altogether to move forward.
In a context such as this one, given the objective of Unity08, I take seriously Indira Gandhi's warning that you cannot shake hands with a clenched fist. A wise man once said one must be fond of people and trust them if one is not to make a mess of life. Another said we may be deceived if we trust too much, but we will live in torment if we don't trust enough. I agree with Thoreau that we may safely trust a good deal more than we do. We can still ask to cut the cards, but try doing that with clenched fists and see what a mess you make of it. Remember then the truth of what Emerson said: Our distrust is very expensive. Every man prefers belief to the exercise of judgment. So how do we decide, based on reason, whether or not to trust the founders of Unity08? I can offer only my own reasons why I do trust the founders of Unity08. My reasons are based on experience, not abstract thought.
Another of my favorite old Romans, Cicero, said trust no one unless you have eaten much salt with him.
For more than 20 years I have known one of the founders of Unity08, James Strock, and I trust him.
I worked with Jim when I was a journalist, then for him in public service until he left the federal government 15 years ago. We remain friends and, despite his fondness for chicken fried steak, we have eaten much salt together over the years.
I got to see the content of Jim's character through his actions and found Theodore Roosevelt's concept of public service and upright devotion to the public interest lives on. Jim almost daily faced decisions where he could either do the right thing and act on his principles or do the politically expedient thing. He always kept his eye on the right thing, never chose the expedient thing, and was always prepared to resign on the spot if forced to go the wrong way. That usually made those who might want to push him the wrong way think more than twice.
I am glad once to have had the opportunity to thank Archibald Cox personally for setting the example of that same thing which helped make high level people in government think carefully about that choice.
Jim and Prof Cox exemplified what Adler meant when he said trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events, not of words. Trust movement. We are spending too much time quibbling over words, I think.
When Jim vouches for the other founders of Unity08 it goes a long way with me. I've never known him to associate himself with anything that wasn't in sync with his exceptionally high standards of uprightness and straightforwardness.
I was impressed with and satisfied by the answers given my questions to the founders on their basic aims and thoughts on fundamental vs. wedge issues.
I think Jim and the other founders are the sort of folks Peter Drucker had in mind when he said: The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say "I." And that's not because they have trained themselves not to say "I." They don't think "I." They think "we"; they think "team." They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don't sidestep it, but "we" gets the credit…. This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done.
Even the ascerbic Dr. Johnson said it is better to suffer wrong than to do it, and happier to be sometimes cheated than not to trust.
Let us, then, at least try to take the advice given by Booker T. Washington:
Few things help an individual more than to place responsibility upon him, and to let him know that you trust him.
Let us try to trust ourselves, each other, and Unity08 to see where we can take this necessary and hopeful movement.
