| Subject: Re: Trance Seance - ECONOMIC FREEDOM - Part 3 |
Author:
Maryse
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:27:43 05/18/08 Sun
In reply to:
Maryse
's message, "Re: Trance Seance - ECONOMIC FREEDOM - Part 2" on 01:24:10 05/18/08 Sun
-- ********--
Spirit Benjamin Franklin: Greetings!
Sitter: Hello there.
Franklin: I’m going to try to wind my way through some philosophy and discussion on the role of the United States in the world, as opposed to its internal problems, and try to focus on just what that role should be. Just as Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jefferson observed that there has been polarisation in this country on internal issues, there has also been polarisation on the role of the United States in the world.
On one hand, you have the isolationists, who fondly remember the old days when we were protected from the rest of the world and could turn all our energies to our internal development and growth. And at the opposite extreme, you have those who insist that the world is totally interdependent, and that all the internal interests of this country should be subjugated to the needs and will of the whole world. These people have actively sought a world government and would advocate subjugating the American system of government to a world government.
This debate continues, of course, and is the cause of much flip-flopping in our foreign policy, and ambiguity about what our role in the world should be. Obviously, any rational solution would be a compromise or middle position between the two extremes. Unfortunately, we have managed to avoid the middle position, and instead have taken the course of moving from one extreme to the other, depending on who happens to be in power at the time. There seems to be less cohesion in foreign policy from one administration to the next now than ever in the past, and this creates an interesting world situation where an ally can become an unwanted friend without doing anything to cause this change. The change is the result of our own changes in attitude and policy as new administrations take over.
I want to make it clear from the beginning hat the world is becoming more and more interdependent, and it is only a matter of time before some kind of world body with a significant amount of power is given the authority to direct the world’s affairs. Sovereign countries are no longer self-sufficient unto themselves, as is most obviously exemplified by THE OIL PROBLEM. We are interdependent on each other throughout the world. And as the economies and political systems of the various countries evolve and develop, more and more interdependence will be necessary. THE ART OF DIPLOMACY IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE EXERCISED WITH EXTREME CARE AND COMPETENCE.
A first priority for America in this changing world is A DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF WHO WE ARE and what we are able to contribute and receive from the world. This is important, because it is this kind of understanding THAT WILL PRESERVE OUR FREEDOMS and ROLE in the world as nations become more interdependent. The rise of interdependence in the world does not in any way mean that the principles and freedoms a country enjoys should be subjugated or diluted by becoming a member of a world body. EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT AND THE OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN ITS OWN IDENTITY AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, AND SHOULD BE FREE TO CHOOSE HOW IT WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE WORLD BODY.
At the same time, however, we must understand that participation in an interdependent world is necessary. It would be virtually impossible at this time to revert to an isolationism which would cut off our free democracy from the rest of the confused world. Those who speak out in favour of isolationism in essence refuse to accept America’s role as a beacon of policy and principle for the world.
And so I am a voice which counsels COMPROMISE AND MODERATION between these two polarised approaches to international relations.
Okay, where do we go from here? I’m going to need a little guidance in the form of questions; I’m not as organised as the rest of the folks here. I tend to wing it. [Laughter.]
Sitter: Well, lets start with this. Some people think we should use the issue of HUMAN RIGHTS to determine our foreign policy. They feel we should promote human rights everywhere in the world, meaning that we should not give any support to repressive regimes –of the right or the left – because they oppress human rights. Many good people find it hard to compromise on this particular issue, and that causes quite a lot of conflict.
Franklin: In principle, EVERYONE in this country SHOULD BE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. Any American – or any human being, for that matter- should retch at the thought of anyone’s HUMAN RIGHTS BEING ABUSED. The right to pursue FREEDOM, SELF-EXPRESSION, HUMAN FULFILLMENT, and one’s OWN IDEAS is a right that is FUNDAMENTAL TO HUMAN EXISTENCE and will eventually manifest throughout the planet.
However, does this mean that our interaction and contact with other political systems and governments should be withheld because of the abuse of human rights – or any other kind of abuse? Just because the kind of government we enjoy here is not enjoyed by others does not necessarily mean that we should shun them or TREAT THEM IN A LESS THAN CIVIL WAY.
It is often thought that it is somehow the responsibility of the United States to free people throughout the world – to take on the responsibility of helping countries or the people within countries to free themselves from the bonds of tyranny which confine them to their particular sad situation. AND SOMETIMES WE LOSE PERSPECTIVE THAT THE ROPES THAT BIND A PEOPLE MUST BE THROWN OFF BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. An outside force cannot impose its will on a people in the long run. It may be able to in the short run, as we have seen many times and will continue to see. BUT IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO FREE THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.
Our responsibility, as Mr. Jefferson put it so eloquently, is to demonstrate our ABILITY TO LIVE AS A FREE PEOPLE and to show that our system of ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL FREEDOM is one that flourishes beyond all other systems. We are meant to be an EXAMPLE to the world, and if we can just do that well, we will be acting IN FULL HARMONY with the destiny of this country. And as Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jefferson said, the first order of business is TO GET OUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER. Once it is in order, then we can make this statement to the rest of the world.
Our house is NOT in order at present, and our foreign policy reflects our OWN CONFUSION about the meaning of FREEDOM. It is becoming increasingly unclear what this country stands for. This must be thought out. We must have a clear perception of who we are and what we stand for. Only this will give us the direction we need.
Sitter: Well, what about turning it around the other way and discussing foreign policy from the standpoint that the United States needs good friends, good neighbours, and good allies? And so we obviously need to do those things which promote a good neighbour policy – where we demonstrate that we are a god neighbour and friend to those countries which are our allies. Would say we haven’t done a very good job in cultivating our friendships in recent years.
Franklin: I would tend to agree. A country needs to have good friends and allies among other nations. And we should therefore be interested in being a good partner in commerce, and advisor when advice is requested, and a source of support when that is required, as well as A PROPONENT OF FREEDOM. Obviously, our closest friendships will be with those countries that have a system of government and a culture which are similar to ours. But we can at least treat other countries CIVILLY and understand that it is our best interest to CULTIVATE STRONG TIES wherever possible.
We should also understand, however, that we can build ties in some countries that are not free by SUPPORTING and ENCOURAGING the people in those countries who are yearning for freedom. It is certainly within the scope of the role of the United States to promote FREE CHOICE among the peoples of the world. It is certainly congruent with our beliefs and principles to aid people who are yearning and fighting for freedom in their own countries. In fact, I would be very diligent in aiding those who are struggling to become free throughout the world.
Sitter: Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. What kind of diligent aid are you advocating? Some of our allies throughout the world are basically dictatorships. If we worked diligently to help freedom loving people of those countries overthrow their governments, we would very quickly undermine our good relations with those countries.
Franklin: You are absolutely right, and I am not in any way advocating an active promotion of revolution throughout the world. The United States SHOULD NOT in any way FOMENT and SUPPORT revolution or TRY TO FORCE ITS WILL ON ANY PEOPLE - as it has been known to do in the past. We should limit ourselves TO LIVING THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT FREEDOM CAN DO and BE WILLING TO HELP those who set up systems similar to ours.
The problem, as I see it, is that all too often we find ulterior motives for aiding and/or changing governments. T is seldom a simple case of helping promote freedom and restore HUMAN DIGITY. Usually, there’s an economic, or political motive that does NOT necessarily RING TRUE to the IDEALS we are trying to express. So we have to learn TO BE MORE DISCRIMINATING, and see the distinction between promoting revolution – even promoting it from within – and merely aiding those who are yearning and fighting for their freedom. It is a subtle distinction. I cannot give you a hard and fast rule in this forum, because there isn’t any.
It takes clear thinking and judgements to determine whether the desires and goals of a group of people are in fact in harmony with those of the United States. If they are, then aid should be given to them, if they are struggling to change their system of government. But aiding people is not the same as initiating revolution.
Sitter: And there are so many factors that complicate the issue, aren’t there? There are any number of South American countries with dictatorial regimes, for instance, and every on of those countries has groups that are opposed to these repressive regimes. And yet, if they ever won and gained control, most of them would be just as bad - if not worse – than the regime they overthrew.
Franklin: Absolutely. And this is precisely my point. Just because a group is fighting a repressive regime does not mean that it loves or embodies freedom. And if it does not, we should not support it.
Sitter: However, it is sometimes to our advantage to promote a stable government.
Franklin: A stable government, yes.
Sitter: Certainly England did that in the late nineteenth century – it often didn’t care who was in charge of a country just as long as they could maintain a stable government the English could work with.
Franklin: Yes. Not everyone in the world is going to live as we live. And it is rational to take the stance that we have a system that works, a system that promotes FREEDOM and we like it. We choose to live under it, and we would like to promote it throughout the world as a system that does not honour the best in the human family. We would like to see the whole world operating under a democratic system such as ours. But the cold reality is that many countries do not. It often takes quite a period of growing up before a people realise that they can live under a system such as ours. That is their choice. We choose to live as we do. They choose to live as they do. We should RESPECT that choice and find ways to cultivate good ties with them.
It is only where the people want to be free but are not being allowed to make that choice where I would DILIGENTLY GIVE SUPPORT. Ad as I said earlier, even then I would be careful to avoid backing revolutionary forces for anything other than THE MOST ALTRUISTIC REASONS. AVOIDING THE ISSUE and just watching out for OUR OWN ECONOMIC SECURITY is better than supporting a revolution that does not result in freedom.
Sitter: Okay. Would you like to say anything about the ARAB-ISRAELI conflagration, or is that too hot?
Franklin: I’m not sure I could say anything that would not be out of date by the time this gets into print.
Sitter: Well, how about talking about the way the trenched antagonism in certain parts of the world – the ARAB-IRAELI conflict, the Northern IRELAND-ENGLISH conflict, an other bitter antagonisms?
Sitter: Or SOUTH AFRICA.
Another sitter: Yes. South Africa, or even VIET NAM. We stumbled into some bitter regional antagonisms there too. Have we been naïve in our diplomacy to get drawn into these conflicts?
Franklin: I think we often try TO TAKE SIDES IN SITUATIONS WHERE WE DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SIDES ARE. Yes, we have been far too simplistic and a little naïve. Those who determine our foreign policy seem to think that it is necessary to take sides, to back one or the other of the participants in a conflict, and sometimes it is not wise to do this. Sometimes it is better NO TO TAKE SIDES, but to try to resolve the conflict in the best interests of everyone involved – the interests of the warring parties.
Far too often, we get embroiled in an “US VERSUS THEM” kind of mentality which does nothing but move the whole art of diplomacy DOWN a notch or two. It is a retreat INTO A DEGREE OF BARBARISM, actually. It is time for our leaders and the people of this country to say: “Look, we have a system that we like. We would like to promote it throughout the world, but we understand that not everyone will be able to or should live under this system at the present time. Therefore, we will promote our own system when we feel that the people have invoked it, and otherwise, we will follow a course of ENLIGHTENED IMPARTIALITY in the conflicts of the world. We will try to be STRONG REFEREE in world affairs, rather than LOWER OURSELVES TO BECOMING A COMBATANT”.
Sitter: or just A MEDDLER.
Franklin: Yes, WE DO TEND TO MEDDLE MORE THAN WE SHOULD.
Sitter: Could you define the distinction between meddling and referring a little more precisely?
Franklin: Well, if you look at the ARAB-ISRAELI conflict, it is clear that the government of the United States made the decision at some point in time that it must TAKE SIDES. And it made the decision that good relations with Israel were more important than good relations with the Arab nations. And of course, we could unravel this whole conversation talking about THE REASONS why we should or should not support Israel. But the fact of the matter is that WE CHOSE TO TAKE A SIDE in the conflict. We didn’t have to take a side, but we chose to. And of course NOW YOU CAN ATTRIBUTE PART OF THE OIL PROBLEM TO THE FACT THAT WE DID CHOSE A SIDE.
Sitter: Yes, it is obvious to me that if we choose Israel as a friend, then we also take on Israel’s enemies as our enemies. People don’t seem to realise that, however.
Franklin: Yes. So rather than take sides in a conflict such as this, WE SHOULD PROMOTE OURSELVES AS AMBASSADORS OF GOODWILL among all nations. We should not LOWER our diplomacy to the level where we are ALIGNING OURSELVES WITH ONE PARTICULAR INTEREST. Nor should we ever make a commitment to back any interest anywhere in the world EXCEPT THE INTEREST OF FREEDOM.
Of course the pursuit of freedom can be warped and blur our thinking, as has happened in the past. But we should strive to be STRONG MEDIATOR and PEACEMAKER, rather than take sides in conflicts.
Sitter: These comments would seem to imply the need for a certain amount of responsibility on the part of every American citizen. After all, in this country, we have citizens who have ties with every country in the world. It would seem to me that a major reason why we have gotten caught up in the conflicts in Israel and even Ireland, for example, is not because the government wants to BUT BECAUSE OF PRESSURE PUT ON IT BY CITIZENS WHO STILL HAVE A GREATER ALLEGIANCE TO THESE COUNRIES than they do to America. Or they are willing to compromise America’s interests to promote the interests of a favoured country.
Franklin: Well, I don’t want to get into specific details, but yes, INTERNAL POLITICS do have a lot to do with why the decision was made to take sides. This is another reason why WE MUST GET OUR HOUSE IN ORDER and DECIDE WHO WE ARE. Are we a bunch of people who are a melting pot of the world and who must now turn around and use our power to save the old country – whatever the old country may be – or are we something more than that?
I think the destiny of the United States is more than that. It is more than TAKING SIDES in conflicts, SENDING ARMS AND TROOPS TO SQUASH THE OTHER GUY. I don’t think that is a role for this country at all, even though it has, in fact, been a role we’ve played. But the fact that we have followed this course merely REFLECTS THE PETTINESS OF OUR LEADERS and the inability of the American people to enunciate the principles by which they desire our foreign policy to be conducted.
Sitter: Of course, some people for get that people in other countries do not have the same values or cultural background as Americans do. They will look at the black people in South Africa as though they were citizens of Alabama or Georgia, for instance, and that doesn’t was. But that may explain why some people think as they do.
Franklin: Yes. And many people do believe that it is the responsibility of the United States to clean up the problems of other countries in all parts of the world.
Sitter: Or they will say that the United States cannot afford to be totally neutral while Cuba is acting as a surrogate of Russia, promoting Russian imperialism.
Franklin: Isn’t it interesting that the term “imperialism” has now been bantered around for so many years that it has taken on a negative connotation?
I would say that generally the scenario is as follows: The Soviet Union goes into an area of the world, and the United States IMMEDIATELY LOWERS ITSELF TO ITS LEVEL and says: “Look at what the Soviet Union is doing. We have TO COMBAT THIS.” And that is definitely NOT what I think the stance of the government of the United States should be. It should be CLEAR that we do promote THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE TO DECIDE on their own government, and that we will DILIGENTLY CHECK the Soviet Union in its attempts to subvert this freedom – and we have THE STRENGTH to do it.
BUT WE SHOULD NOT LOWER OURSELVES TO THEIR LEVEL.
The Soviet Union operates at VERY BASE LEVELS. They are very SOPHISTICATED AT BEING DEVIOUS. And it is not good for the United States to try TO MATCH THEIR BASENESS and DEVIOUNESS with BASENESS and DEVIOUSNESS OF OUR OWN. We should try instead to block their efforts through A CAMPAIGN of “CHECKMATE”, where the NEUTRALITY of the supper powers in influencing smaller countries is maintained because of the STRENGTH of each. If the Soviet Union attempts to impose its will on an unwilling people, it is our responsibility TO HELP PREVENT IT. It’s an act of war. But our general policy should be TO AVOID such conflicts BY REMAINING CLEAR ABOUT OUR PRIORITIES AND PRINCIPLES.
My personal opinion is that the United States HAS LOWERED ITSELF AND ABASED ITS DIGNITY in the last couple of decades through its conduct of foreign policy. We have not lived up to the spirit of America and have gotten sucked into A LOWER LEVEL OF CONDUCT in world affairs.
Sitter: You’ve mentioned a couple of times the need to define the identity of America and the kind of SELF-IMAGE we ought to be projecting. Could you comment a bit more in depth about the kind of identity we should be generating? What should our self-image be?
Franklin: Well, I think I’ve been answering that question in everything I’ve said, but I suppose it would be useful to summarise it. I‘m trying to make a case of America as a PEACEMAKER, a STRONG but COMPASSIONATE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY THEIR FREEDOM AND WISH TO PROMOTE THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. It is a people who REFRAIN FROM TAKING SIDES and who attempt TO BE MEDIATOR in disputes arising between other countries, a people who would carry on commerce with most countries, and who would make a VERY SERIOUS STAND AGAINST ANY OUTSIDE AGGRESSION – indeed, when asked, would aid the fight against outside aggression.
Does that make it clear?
Sitter: Yes. I think if that was the image conveyed through our diplomacy, it would be very effective indeed. What suggestions could you make to AMERICAN DIPLOMATS to make them MORE EFFECTIVE in the art of diplomacy?
Franklin: Well, there are two things:
1) The first is the need for a central policy and set of principles on which we ALL agree. It is very difficult to be a diplomat in a foreign country when you are pretty sure the people in charge back in Washington don’t know what they are doing. It is very difficult to promote a COHERENT IMAGE OF AMERICA if there is NO DIRECTION or BASIS FOR MAKING DECISIONS. It’s very difficult to interact with other governments or serve as A SPOKESMAN for our interests if no one has COHERENTLY DEFINED what those interests are. American diplomacy has been a patchwork of decisions made on the spur of the moment by individuals who HAVE FAILED TO THINK THROUGH THE LARGE PICTURE – the scope of what the role of the United States should be and the philosophy which should guide specific actions.
2) Of course, the second part of the art of diplomacy is the ability to cultivate close personal relationships with the members of other governments, so that we can begin to understand them and begin to have an idea how those countries will respond to particular situations. At its highest level, the good diplomat should almost be able to predict in advance how a country will respond to policies and events, because he has cultivated these close personal relationships and gotten to know the key decision makers of the other governments.
There is nothing worse than surprises in foreign policy – particularly the surprises which arise when the United States acts in a mode that was not anticipated. CONSISTENCY is a key to GOOD DIPLOMACY – consistency in why we are doing what we are. The diplomat ought to be able to tell other governments: “These are the principles we believe in and these are the ideas we are going to promote in the world. No matter what situation arises, we are going to evaluate it and act on these particular principles.” And WE SHOULD LET THE WORLD KNOW WHAT THESE PRINCIPLES ARE.
I would venture to say that right now the United States appears as UNPRINCIPLED as the Soviet Union, because it is operating ON A LEVEL THAT IS NO BETTER than they are. We are not conducting our foreign policy with any more principles than any other country, and I think it is time we got back to defining and living by the principles of the American spirit.
So There!
Sitter: Does the United States have any special degree of obligation to the international community TO LEND A HELPING HAND IN PROMOTING INDUSTRIALISATION OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES?
Franklin: We certainly have a responsibility to help the world develop. But unfortunately we have let OUR OWN INTERNAL SITUATION DETERIORATE to the point where we are no longer the force we once were. We no longer speak with the voice of authority we once had; we have become so inconsistent in our own development that OUR CREDIBILITY is not what it once was. We certainly are not in as good a position now as we once were to help developing countries increase their productivity. The economy of this country has deteriorated rapidly in the last two decades, so how can we possibly offer advice if we can’t even run our own economy?
We certainly don’t have the credibility that the Japanese have. They have done a remarkable job in increasing productivity in commerce and industry. If I were going to ask for help, I probably would go to them first, rather than come to the United States. We are no longer in the dominant position we once enjoyed. That is clear, and I don’t think it will be much of a surprise to any of our readers. We must renew our principles and redefine our philosophy, so that we can move into the next period of our history.
Sitter: All right.
Franklin: Let me close my comments then. The destiny of America is TO PROMOTE BY EXAMPLE THE CONCEPTS OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, ECONOMIC FREEDOM, AND HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, and to make sure that the CLIMATE in any part of the world is such that THESE CONCEPTS CAN GROW. It is sort of like the farmer who puts A SEED in the ground and waters it and adds fertiliser to it, in hopes that THE SEED WILL GROW. And the farmer does what he can to keep the environment healthy, so that the plant will grow. Sometimes it doesn’t grow, but the farmer does all he can.
The destiny of the United States in the world, and the role it should play diplomatically, is to provide THE CLIMATE in which INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AND FREEDOM WILL FLOURISH. It must make the statement of WHAT FREEDOM MEANS and reinforce it as best it can. We cannot force freedom on anyone, or shove it down anyone’s throat. We’ve tried it and it doesn’t work. And it shouldn’t work. Democracy and the yearning for freedom COME FROM WITHIN. They cannot be forced on anyone. But we should be willing and able to provide the fertiliser and the water to make sure THE SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD ARE NURTURED.
He primary way of doing this is TO SHOW BY EXAMPLE WHAT FREEDOM IS. And until we get OUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER and begin to demonstrate this example INTELLIGENTLY, we are going to have increasingly less and less voice in world affairs. There is very little worth respecting about the way we have handled the world’s problems during the last decade. We have approached them in an unprincipled manner, with the same GREED AND IGNORANCE that motivate the other powers of the world.
I think it is time the citizens of the United States set forth the principles and beliefs that ought to guide the actions of our diplomats, and let the world know that we believe in these ideas and values and stand ready to defend them - and–to defend our system – with all the energy that we have.
It is the best system the world has ever seen and that has been proven. That is real clear. But we have let CONFUSION and AN IDENTITY CRISIS set us BACK, and some GREEDY, POWER HUNGRY, and INCOMPETENT PEOPLE have made some decisions FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY that have TARNISHED OUR PRESTIGE IN THE WORLD COMMUNITY. So we now must decide that the principles we live by and the way in which we conduct ourselves are far more important than any other consideration. It is always good to act in ways that promote our best self-interest, but it is possible to get too caught up in making sure that we preserve this supply of ore or that supply of oil. RESPECT DOES NOT COME FROM HAVING CONTROL OF ASSETS OR CONTROL OF PEOPLE. It comes from THE CALM SENSE OF KNOWING WHO WE ARE and WHAT WE STAND FOR – what we are willing to defend and promote to the best of our ability.
Until we rejuvenate the CLEAR VISION that once was the American dream, we are going to see a chaotic world, a world in which we are not any better or worse than any other country in the world, just different. But we don’t want to be just a different system. We want to demonstrate that DEMOCRACY IS THE BEST SYSTEM – the system that provides he most freedom and creates the best climate for THE FULL FLOWERING OF HUMAN EVOLUTION that has ever been present on this planet. And we are charged with the responsibility of promoting this system throughout the world.
Sitter: That sounds like a NOBLE CHALLENGE.
Another sitter: Yes.
Franklin: That’s all I have to say. But I’m being prompted to go over a few technical details with you. Any ideas of where you want to go from here with these interviews? We have a lot of options open.
Sitter: One possibility would be to look more at the events in the last two or three decades which have led to the SEVERE PROBLEMS the three of you have been talking about. May be we need to hear from someone closer to the modern scene, now that we’ve talked to all of you old duffers. [Laughter.]
Franklin: All of us old duffers?
Sitter: Yes, I think it is time for a newer duffer.
[More laughter.]
Franklin: A newer duffer.
Sitter: Or even a new age duffer.
Franklin: Well, one of the reasons why we have stayed with the old duffers is that we have a particular air about us.
[Laughter.]
Sitter: I know.
Franklin: Would you like to talk to Landslide Lyndon?
Sitter: That would be fine. It would be a great honour. But that would be too recent. Too many people would still think of him purely on the personality level, rather than as an expert of the spirit of America.
Franklin: Yes.
Sitter: And the republicans would be suspicious of anything he said, unless he said he has changed his mind now that’ he’s in heaven, and then all the Democrats would howl. [Laughter.] The advantage of talking with you old duffers, I guess, is that you are all so ancient YOU ARE NOW THOUGHT OF AS SAINTS.
Franklin: Yes.
Sitter: There certainly are people who played major roles in guiding America toward its destiny in between 1790 and 1980. I don’t want to prejudice anything by asking for someone in specific, but there were some great people.
Another sitter: There were many great people. Even some of those who have a slightly tarnished reputation were great people. I don’t think there have been any really rotten presidents. They all have had some degree of greatness.
Franklin: Okay, We’ll let it be a surprise. But it won’t be all old duffers, even though Papa George will be one of the ones still making an appearance.
Sitter: Good.
Franklin: I thank you.
Sitter: Thank you.
Another sitter: Yes, thank you.
-- ********--
.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
