The Highest Calling, page 52
Conflicts of interest. There are extensive conflicts-of-interest rules for presidential appointees. They may well have to sell many, if not most, of their assets if there could be a perception of a conflict. But, interestingly, there are no rules or requirements relating to a president’s conflicts of interest. Typically, a president will not have that much in the way of financial resources as to which a conflict would really arise; but to avoid even the appearance of a potential problem, some have entered binding blind-trust arrangements. President Carter did this, as did President Kennedy. The wealthiest person to serve as president, Donald Trump, turned over his major business operations to his oldest sons to oversee, though there was no binding blind trust. Legislation requiring blind trusts or some similar mechanism would seem to make clear that a president’s decisions are not designed for personal financial gain.
Transitions. Presidential candidates should be required to have transition teams working at least three months before the November election, to ensure a relatively smooth change of power if the incumbent party loses the election. And the incumbent president should not be able to thwart a transition by refusing to permit a transition to occur. Congress has addressed this problem, which arose in 2020, by passing legislation in 2021. But the legislation does not require either the outgoing or incoming president to take transitions seriously, and put their best talent on the undertaking. That cannot be legislated, but more media and public attention on the pre- and post-election transition, as they occur, would be helpful.
Pardons. The presidential power of pardon is granted in the Constitution, and that power seems absolute—no criteria for a pardon are set forth in the Constitution, and there are no requirements for explanation. Typically, presidents grant pardons throughout their term, but many of the more controversial pardons seem to be granted when the term is almost over, there generally being no political consequences for a president who is leaving office. As his administration was ending, one president, Bill Clinton, granted a pardon to Marc Rich, who had been convicted of violating federal energy trading laws but fled from the U.S. prior to sentencing. This pardon became highly controversial because of the circumstances that may have led to it being granted—gifts made before the pardon from Rich’s former wife to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Presidential Library. President Trump also received considerable adverse attention from some pardons granted at the end of his term, such as to the father of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and to longtime political supporters Roger Stone and Paul Manafort.
Pardon power is unlikely to be changed or modified by a constitutional amendment or by the courts. But a law might be upheld by the courts if a president were simply asked to explain the reason for a particular pardon. An explanation would provide greater public understanding about why a pardon was granted, and that should serve the public’s interest in knowing why a president has acted—though I recognize that a president, particularly one about to leave office, is unlikely to forgo granting a pardon because of such a requirement.
Press interviews/conferences. There is no requirement in the Constitution or any law that a president answer press questions or speak to any member of the press ever. A law requiring press appearances also seems hard to pass in Congress, but it would be desirable if presidents met regularly with some members of the press to answer questions, or to do a full-scale press conference from time to time. Some presidents have done this regularly, like President John F. Kennedy, who had a press conference nearly every two weeks. Others have been less willing to hold press conferences regularly, though they do talk to a few reporters (generally those who are friendly) from time to time.
The suggestion here is simply that it might be advisable to have some standard of a president meeting with a few or a full set of press members to respond to questions on a somewhat regular basis. Responding to press questions regularly does not mean that a president is necessarily doing a good job, but being forced to prepare for such conferences—and then answering questions—does seem to give the public a sense of what is in the mind of the person leading the country’s government.
Debates. There is also no requirement that presidents or presidential candidates debate. The first such debates occurred in 1960, when Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon held four debates. The next presidential debates occurred in 1976, when President Gerald Ford and Governor Jimmy Carter had three debates.
Since that time, there have been debates in each presidential election. But there is no legal requirement to debate, and it is clear that the skill needed to do well in a debate is a bit different than the skill needed to be an effective president.
But debates do increase interest in the election, and generally are a plus for democracy. No law is likely to pass requiring presidential debates, but public and media pressure to ensure debates occur would be a welcome plus for presidential elections.
Former presidents. In some countries, leaders seem to make a fair amount of money while in office. In the U.S., presidents seem to make a fair amount of money after they leave office. Former presidents are now busily engaged in writing memoirs, building presidential libraries and museums, making speeches, and (depending on their popularity) campaigning for other political figures in their party.
Until the time of President Ford’s retirement, the concept of making significant sums of money for speeches (or corporate appearances or board positions) was generally nonexistent. Presidents did make money writing their memoirs, but that was their principal source of postpresidential income for those who did so. In more recent years, most former presidents have managed to make a fair amount of money not only on their books, but also on speeches, business opportunities, or related investment activities. My former boss, Jimmy Carter, generally shunned making money on speeches or business projects and supported himself principally from royalties from his dozens of books, but he was a bit unusual. To be sure, he did seek to raise large sums from corporations and individuals to fund his center’s activities, though that money did not accrue to him personally.
Former presidents have a wealth of experience, and there would probably be some benefit to having them work together from time to time on matters of national interest when asked by a current president. In recent decades, President Carter tried, with the approval of President Clinton, to settle a dispute in Haiti and, separately, to ease relations with North Korea. When former presidents can use their contacts and experience to work cooperatively, or even individually, with an incumbent administration to solve national or international problems, that would seem to be a positive outcome for the country.
Popular former presidents also tend to provide advice to their successor, as President Obama seems to have done with President Biden. Hopefully, presidents will try to take advantage of one or more of their predecessor’s experiences, when appropriate. Of course, some former presidents do not get along with each other, and thus it may be difficult at times to get them all to work together on a project of great public importance. But any measure that all former presidents could support would be likely to actually occur or go into effect.
In the end, though, the responsibility for getting presidents who are highly qualified and able to lead the country effectively cannot be left solely to political parties. The real responsibility falls to the American citizen, who has an obligation to vote. Sadly, even in presidential elections, less than two-thirds of eligible voters actually vote. In 2020, about 66 percent of eligible voters actually voted. Stated in different terms, about 80 million Americans who could have voted did not vote. In few other Western democracies do so many eligible voters—percentage-wise—not vote.
The U.S. government and civic groups and others need to encourage every eligible voter to vote. Millions of Americans have died over the past nearly 250 years fighting to protect our freedoms, and that includes the right to vote. Every vote can make a difference, as we have seen in elections like 2000.
This book has tried to show how different the U.S. presidents can be in background, personality, and approach. And those differences can dramatically affect how a president governs, and thus how every American is impacted by a particular president. My wish is that every American who reads this book will feel a greater civic—and patriotic—obligation to learn as much as possible about a president before he—or no doubt soon, she—will govern, and affect thereby each American’s life. And hopefully, every reader eligible to vote will be certain to vote.
POSTSCRIPT
Biden vs. Trump: Election 2024
As this book goes to press, it appears that the 2024 presidential election will be a re-match of the 2020 election, except that President Biden is now the incumbent and President Trump is now the challenger. (And there is an independent candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who could take away enough votes from one major-party candidate to enable another major-party candidate to win a state).
The outcome of the election between Biden and Trump is unclear at this moment. Just a few days ago, President Trump was found guilty by a jury in a New York Court on 34 felony counts relating to a payment designed, in the prosecutor’s view, to keep private an apparent extra-marital encounter, thereby helping Donald Trump win the 2016 election.
The verdict will be appealed by President Trump, but whether the appeal will be successful before the November 5, 2024 election is unknown. Also unknown at this time is the impact of the guilty verdict on President Trump’s election prospects. Immediately after the verdict, his campaign seemed to have a large influx of campaign donations. Too, the immediate polling data does not seem to reflect any measurable loss of support for Trump among his supporters.
The guilty verdict was, of course, major news in the United States, for no former president has ever been found guilty of a felony by the U.S. legal system. But it was also major front-page news throughout the world.
And the reason is, as noted at this book’s outset, the president of the United States has been, for at least a hundred years, the dominant political government figure in the world. And the world rightly recognizes that one person—the U.S. president—can determine the economic, financial, military, geopolitical, and cultural fate of so much of the world.
In this particular election, as in the previous two, the views and policy priorities of the candidates are completely different. And the U.S. electorate, and billions of people around the world, realize that their futures can be very different depending on who is elected.
So the American voter in 2024 truly stands in the docket of history, with the opportunity to change the country’s, and the world’s, course, making even more important the exercise of the right to vote.
To illustrate the impact of a single vote, one need only look at the 2000 and 2020 elections.
In 2000, George Bush won Florida and the presidency by just 537 votes. In 2020, Donald Trump would have won the election—without any real dispute—if roughly 43,000 voters (out of about 165 million voters) in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin had voted for him rather than Joe Biden.
The 2024 election is likely to be equally dependent on the votes of a relatively small number of voters in the “swing” states (ones that voted for Trump in 2016 and for Biden in 2020) of Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. So everyone’s vote will be extraordinarily important, and voters should exercise their right to vote, on Election Day or earlier, to help ensure that as large a percentage of eligible voters as possible reflect their views on who should be the next president of the United States. Every vote really does count.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I reached an agreement with Simon & Schuster about eighteen months ago to write a book on entrepreneurship, a subject of real interest to me. I had intended to interview many of the country’s leading entrepreneurs and distill the key traits that made them so successful.
As I prepared to begin those interviews, I found I could not resist writing a book on a subject of nearly lifelong interest to me, the U.S. presidency, and to have that book published before the 2024 presidential election. My hope (a bit naïve no doubt) was that some insights might better inform voters about the presidency as they assess their choices in the election. (I recognize that no one book is likely to really sway how voters assess their choice for president, but hope springs eternal for all authors that their books will have some impact on readers’ thoughts and behavior. I am no different.)
Because Simon & Schuster was willing to accommodate my change of plans, I am very grateful, and particularly want to thank the company’s gifted president and publisher, Jonathan Karp, and my editor, Stephanie Frerich, a real pro at taking overwritten prose and distilling it into a readable text.
I would also like to thank Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton), Donald J. Trump, and Joe Biden for agreeing to let me interview them, and to have the interviews included in this book. I would also like to thank the many presidential scholars who allowed me to interview them and to also have those interviews included in this book. I did interview a number of other scholars on particular presidents and on the presidency, but space limitations prevented me from including all interviewees, though some of them are included in the audio version of this book.
I would also like to thank Jennifer Howard, who worked tirelessly to help edit the interviews, working closely with the interviewees and the publisher, and made certain that all consents were obtained and all interviews were accurate. Jennifer has worked closely with me on all my books, and her unflagging commitment to these books and to the requisite accuracy is much appreciated. I also want to thank my friend, and outstanding writer and editor, Marie Arana, for recommending Jennifer to me as I began writing books a few years ago.
This book could not have been completed on time or with the desired accuracy without my personal staff. My three-decade-plus chief of staff, the indefatigable and superefficient MaryPat Decker, made certain that all the desired interviews could occur when needed, and ensured that the others on the staff did what was needed to help get the book completed on time and with the required skill and diplomacy needed in interacting with the interviewees. In particular, I appreciate the efforts of Laura Boring and Amanda Mangum, who have also worked for me for, respectively, nearly two decades and one decade. A new addition to my personal staff, Jack Bertuzzi, also worked tirelessly to do the required research for my interviews and to fact-check my own writing (not an always easy task).
I would also like to thank Mandeep Singh Sandhu and his team for their skill in recording and transcribing many of the interviews in this book.
And I want to express my appreciation to Chris Ullman, who has worked tirelessly in helping to deal with the various public relations opportunities for this book (as he did with my prior books).
As with all my books, Bob Barnett, my friend of nearly half a century (dating back to law school), and now one of the country’s leading representatives of authors in all genres, not only encouraged me to write this book but worked closely with Simon & Schuster to secure a contract for it. Without Bob’s support and encouragement, this book, and all my previous books, would not have ever been completed or published.
I would also like to thank my colleagues at Carlyle, especially my cofounders, Bill Conway and Dan D’Aniello, and Carlyle’s current CEO, Harvey Schwartz, for their willingness to put up with my need, from time to time, to miss Carlyle events to complete interviews for this book. Similarly, I appreciate the support of Brian Frank, who leads Declaration Partners, a family investment vehicle, for tolerating my need to reschedule meetings periodically to complete this book.
A number of the interviews occurred at places where I do public interviews from time to time, and I appreciate the leaders at those organizations for allowing me to use interviews which occurred at their forums: Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress, who facilitated my interviews at the Congressional Dialogues series at the library; Louise Mirrer, president and CEO of the New-York Historical Society, who made possible a number of interviews as part of its various history programs; and the 92nd Y’s president, Alyse Myers, and program director, Susan Engel, for their help with one of the interviews done there.
I would also like to thank my new partner in purchasing the Baltimore Orioles, Mike Arougheti, for tolerating my need to miss or reschedule some meetings and calls as we moved to purchase the team earlier this year.
All author proceeds will be directed to the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center and the Harlem Park Elementary/Middle School, both in Baltimore.
I am certain there are some errors in this book. No book is perfect, and this one is no different. For any such mistakes, I bear full responsibility.
—David M. Rubenstein
More from the Author
How to Invest
The American Experiment
How to Lead
The American Story
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
© Robert Severi
David M. Rubenstein is cofounder and cochairman of The Carlyle Group, one of the world’s largest and most successful private investment firms. Established in 1987, Carlyle now manages $425 billion from 28 offices around the world.
Mr. Rubenstein is a Baltimore native and is the Chairman and CEO of Major League Baseball’s Baltimore Orioles.
Mr. Rubenstein is chairman of the boards of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Gallery of Art, the Economic Club of Washington, and the University of Chicago; a Trustee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, the Institute for Advanced Study, the National Constitution Center, the Brookings Institution, and the World Economic Forum; and a director of the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
