Washington National Cathedral

Dean Sam Lloyd: Good morning and welcome to next in our series of Sunday Forums taking place in the intersection of faith and public life. These are interesting times in the life of our country, and our president-elect is going to need the best advice and support he can get. And few people are better positioned to offer that kind of counsel than our friend who is with us today, Dr. David Abshire.

David has spent a long and distinguished career in public service serving at various times, as ambassador to NATO, as assistant secretary of state, as a special counselor and a cabinet of President Ronald Reagan, but as a friend and advisor to just about every administration in one way or another. Most importantly for us today, David Abshire is president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency here in Washington and co-founder of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. His latest book ought to be required reading for many in the transition and I suspected it is. It’s called A Call to Greatness: Challenging Our Next President. David Abshire has been a voice for tolerance and civility and bipartisanship in government and we look forward to hearing more about that in our conversation today. David, welcome! It’s great to have you here.

Dr. David Abshire: It’s wonderful to be at the Cathedral.

Lloyd: Thank you. Thank you. Writing more than a year ago, you said that the next president would likely arrive in office at a tipping point in American power and influence. Since then we had a national economic meltdown the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Great Depression. Is this the kind of tipping point you were thinking of? Is this, do you think, a tipping point in America’s power and influence, one of those rare fulcrum moments when things can turn?

Abshire: Sam, it’s double what I saw a year ago. In the book, I said that the inauguration will be a gathering storm and the president would not realize he was in trouble. And now we have a leadership team that will be meeting with him, but with the tsunami, financial tsunami around the world, we’re in deep, deep trouble and it is a call for greatness.

Lloyd: Even before this economic meltdown happened, you were saying America was already in a slow decline and needed to reassess just about everything about what was going on. What made you say that? What were your concerns before?

Abshire: Well, we have lost our strategic, our financial, our budgetary, freedom of action, our standing and influence in so much in the world. And of course when I wrote the book, then I said we’ve got a booming economy, stock market’s good, and those things are not. But I also say at the end of the book before I quote, Lincoln in 1862, we’ve been there before. In 1861, in 1933, 1941, 1947 and we’ve risen to greatness. Sometimes it’s the greatness of the challenge that produces the greatness of the leaders.

Lloyd: And now what’s President-elect Barak Obama coming in, he faces a huge array of challenges, what kind of counsel would you be giving if he were sitting here today about how to weight in about everything that’s in front of him?

Abshire: Well, I’m very gratified, because I had had the models for the new president not knowing who it would be. Roosevelt…our two greatest commanders in chief, Roosevelt our second commander in chief, Lincoln our first great commander in chief.

Lincoln was a genius. He had that cabinet of rivals, but he was ahead of his cabinet and his timing, visibility immobilized the nation. He’s depth to the understanding of American power and influence. And now I think Obama, Senator Obama, who started from the very steps, in Springfield, that Lincoln started from, in this remarkable campaign and of course these has already produced the second revolution in American history which I completed it. Lincoln started with emancipation. So in his extraordinary campaign and the nature of it, and his executive ability in dealing with people, there haven’t been the conflicts within his organization, and his ability to move from the left to the center, mainstream, to bring the country together.

Lloyd: Let’s stay for a moment with the two great models that you hold out for our new President, with Lincoln, (Abshire: Right…) and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Tell us something about each. What do you think Obama has to learn from each of these two men as he starts his time in office?

Abshire: Well, you know, from both of them, the reason that they were masterful grand strategists, they knew timing is everything. When Lincoln came in—and you’ve got to remember we don’t call it from the left: it’s noble, it was anti-slavery, but it was perceived. And then, when he made a move to reinforce Fort Sumter, overrode his cabinet, save the Union, call for volunteers, mobilize the railroads and so forth—but he, he then knew that he had to change course and make the preservation of the Union, not abolishment of slavery.

And it wasn’t until two years later that he can move in that other direction. Roosevelt, let me just say, the partisan New Dealer made this his move in 1938. Got all these Republicans [he’d hit in “soak the rich” speech], put them to work, organizing business, bipartisan cabinet to end the war. They knew when to move, when to turn and timing and mobilization was everything.

Lloyd: So in both cases you’re really saying that it was the ability to think [in] fresh ways and to bring people together in surprising combination that had a lot to do with it. One thing you mentioned in your book was Lincoln’s decision to make the war about preserving the Union rather than about slavery was perceived by many of those who support him as a betrayal of the very cause, the abolitionist cause, that they have been a part of something. He was in a way turning on his own people in order to do something he thought was necessary to muster the forces to fight the Civil War.

Abshire: Right, because he knew… You know, the first principle of strategy is unity of effort, and he knew that to be successful, he had to keep the northern Democrats and the Republicans unified. And the Democrats were not going to make the war about slavery.

Later, after 1862, after his victory at Antietam, he could do his grand sweep, do the emancipation proclamation, forced Europe out of King Cotton to support the north, and get then a 175,000 black troops. And that’s when he really said, they are my equal, they’re more than my equal.

Lloyd: But he was first a pragmatist.

Abshire: He had to be. You’ve got to deal with timing. And people don’t understand; they think strategy’s [a goal. It’s timing, it’s ways, it’s means, it’s coalitions and being able to accomplish your objectives. Noble objectives, if you don’t have the ways and means and timing, will not happen. We’ve had that in some tragic presidential cases.

Lloyd: Didn’t Franklin Roosevelt started out pretty partisan himself but then finds its way into a more bipartisan place?

Abshire: He was a very, very partisan New Dealer, and in 1935 he had this “soak the rich” speech, hitting all these Republicans that he later got organized in the war. He got these two preeminent cabinet members, one from Hoover’s administration, had been his secretary of state. And then he went out and he built a team. Of course, the difference between Roosevelt… He was not a genius, but Roosevelt had a transformational situation.

When he lost his ability to walk, he learned dependence on other people, and how to marshal. And you know, his cabinet member Stimson said he [could] follow something about twenty eight seconds; Reagan, I worked with him, [could follow something about] twenty-seven [seconds]. Very often they could see something…

Lloyd: …twenty seven seconds.

Abshire: …twenty seven…

Lloyd: What was that?

Abshire: Reagan thought he could end the Cold War, and everybody thought he was nuts. Roosevelt has these visions, but he had to have the managers to carry it out. Lincoln the genius combined those two abilities. That’s his genius.

Lloyd: You’re singing the praises of presidents on both sides of the political spectrum, so it begins to sound as if success as a leader of America isn’t necessarily attached to one particular set of political conviction or another, as [it is] to something about how they lead and where they’re trying to take the country. Would you say something about it?

Abshire: Well absolutely, because if you study political parties, I mean, they keep changing what they represent. If you take, going back to Jefferson, and they shift in their positions and they move.

But the way that people…what people don’t understand is in times of trouble, you’ve got to get an amalgamation, because people are willing to put country first and make the sacrifice if they’re asked to do it. And above all to keep trust, and trust means the truthfulness. It also means accountability or capability. If you’re the trustee… as Roosevelt, the first Roosevelt, said, then you’re entrusted with the nation’s welfare and you got to perform well. [If] you’ve got a trustee for your children [and the trustee says,] “Well, I tried to do my best, but I lost the money,” that’s not very good. It’s performance as well forthrightness.

Lloyd: For many, many years you have really carried the flag for the notion of bipartisanship and collaboration across party lines, you brought out this Mt. Vernon covenant…

Abshire: Right.

Lloyd: You have been a public voice for trying to get the political parties to work together. Why is it that over the last more than a decade that has been a very difficult thing to do? And how much success do you think we might hope to have going forward in getting the parties work together?

Abshire: Well there are a lot of things that worked against it: the talk radio on the Republican right, bloggers on the democratic left. Your right and left would destroy both parties, by the way. And the redistricting, which meant in districts, one person, one party runs against another and they have to run to the right or the left, the families not being together in Washington…

But it is my belief, that the President, the power of persuasion can cut through that; that Barack Obama, with his powers, his calmness, his ability to reach out, to listen like Lincoln, before he makes his decisions, has got that power and I’ve got a number of recommendations at the book, written in the book. The new administration has these, but I think you should have a leadership group, as Eisenhower did frequently, that meets regularly with the president on foreign policy and things of national security and building these compacts because… Some people condemn this is centrism in watering down. It’s building up to accomplish great things. Bill Clinton was able to do that in the middle of his administration and he lost some of that after the Lewinsky affair in the first part of his administration. But that triangulation which is some kind of been made fun of, you’ve got to build those bipartisan coalitions, they got the welfare-to-work [program], they got the balanced budget act, we got surpluses, and that’s the way to operate. That’s the way Eisenhower operates. That’s the way… Ronald Reagan had Tip O’Neill down there every week, he had three preeminent Democrats working for him, and he conceived of himself as the president of all the people.

Lloyd: There’s been a lot of talk about the influence of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals lately, as she studies the way Lincoln led, and bringing many different voices—or at least some very strong contrary voices—into his cabinet. Would you say something both about that model and whether you think that is the kind of model we should be using, and how might that play out?

Abshire: That is Barack Obama’s favorite book. I think sometimes the rivals are emphasized over the team. And I think the reason we’re going to have such a strong team… I’m very grateful that apparently General Jim Jones, who’s done a lot of things with us, will be appointed the national security advisor. He’s a very well grounded, wise supreme allied commander in NATO, done work on energy back here; and he will help to keep the national security team working together.

The big failures, the Bay of Pigs around contra, the misuse of intelligence and so forth, planning going in to Iraq, all have come as a breakdown of that system. So I think this is the glue that will keep that system together.

Lloyd: The contrary views are essential.

Abshire: And to have those different views come forward, and you know… the danger of a team is that dissent is not heard. And this is the great thing about Roosevelt. The first time he met Brigadier General George C. Marshall in 1938, and Roosevelt had had a cockamamie idea to put everything into bombers and scare Hitler… since his arms were tied, the non- intervention acts, Lindbergh. And went around the room, everybody was agreeing with him and Marshall disagreed, and everybody thought that’s the end of his career. A year later, he’s made his chief of staff in organizer victory.

So you’ve got to have the role of dissent, but then mixed into this teamwork.

Lloyd: And that goes all the way back doesn’t it, all the way back to George Washington’s administration, when he put two political sworn enemies, Hamilton and Jefferson, in the same cabinet?

Abshire: Absolutely, and he needed them both. And I might just mention, because of something I’m writing today, I say the next president in not only commander in chief but the financier in chief. And the person who did so much to say on the contrary was Hamilton, because we’ve lost our creditworthiness and we were going down the drain and we had to assume the debts of the states. And that was fallout between Jefferson and Hamilton. And you know Hamilton won, but at the grand dinner… They did put the capital here in Washington, but we faced a financial crisis that threatened to destroy the country when Washington came to office.

Lloyd: Let’s come back up to the current crisis. We open up the newspaper every day, not only not knowing what we’ll going to find, but continually discovering that the people most in the know don’t seem to have chartered the course through this themselves. No one quite knows what to do about this. Is there any wisdom you bring from your study of history in the leadership of presidents about what we might be looking for—what we might hope for at the time of such difficult financial crisis as this?

Abshire: Well, I look a little bit at history. You know when I met with Senator Obama’s Chris Lu before the elections, we met with both sides and he wanted our case studies of every presidency beginning with Roosevelt. And when I got Jim Burns eight years ago to write the one on Roosevelt, he said, I will write the first hundred days only if I write the second 1935-36, because the first hundred days he was bobbing and weaving and he have no idea what he was doing. He made mistakes.

And both Hoover and Roosevelt made the mistake of contracting credit in trying to balance the budget, and it made things worse. So you’re going to make mistakes. And we’ve made some mistakes as we’ve gone forward but… We reversed courts several times in the rescue packages, but the cooperation between the ingoing and outgoing governments is tremendous, and the worldwide cooperation.

And I think the team of Sommers is very smart going into the White House, and I think the former head of the New York Federal Reserve is an outstanding appointment, and big tall Paul Volcker, like a prophet in the Old Testament, he was chairman of my advisory board at CSIS for seven to eight years, he’s a very wise person. And the markets have gone up—and I don’t want to put too much stock in this—for the past five days because of the steadiness of that team, in my judgment. Because credibility is important in the markets, as credibility is important in everything in the president, and president-elect does.

Lloyd: Let’s take this conversation about civility in another direction. You happen to be an active Episcopalian and so you’re part of another vast body of people who need to learn things about civility as well. So I’m wondering if in fact…

Abshire: Wonder what that refers to—

Lloyd: As an Episcopalian, you have recently co-authored a piece that appeared in the Washington Post blog On Faith, talking with Ian Markham, who’s the dean of Virginia Seminary. There was a call for civility and understanding within our own Episcopal church; there’s been too much polarizing going on there. Would you say something about the issues you raised and what your concerns are there?

Abshire: Well, first of all, let me say, that civility needs to be defined. It doesn’t mean we’ve got to all agree. It means we can disagree, but we listen, we respect, we get on higher ground. That’s what they did in the Constitutional Convention in producing the miracle in Philadelphia. It’s good enough for them, it was good enough for the founding fathers, and a lot of those founding fathers were Anglicans and had that sense of balance and proportions, particularly Virginia ones.

So it doesn’t mean that everybody in the church has got to agree on every issue. But I think what Ian Markham and I got down to is that, while we have got great diversity, and we welcome seekers in the Episcopal church, we believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, we believe in the Holy Trinity, we believe in the Holy Communion. And yet a lot of things are being put down there to the contrary about dissenting people, and that is just not true. And we’re going to put together a decoration of mainstream Episcopalian across the country. That is I’ve done with Max Kampelman in civil life.

And I just think, you know, this Cathedral is a testament, it’s the children of Abraham and the unity therein. It’s the testament to the overarching role of Anglicanism between the Catholic and the evangelical wings of the church. But here Gerry Ford, the great healer, we celebrate Ronald Reagan, Woodrow Wilson’s grandson is buried here. And… we have—in the Episcopal church, in the Anglican Communion, in a polarized world, in a polarized America—something to offer but we’ve got to speak up that our commitment, strong, but our tolerance of people that may believe differently—that was the genius of the founding fathers, and our first Anglican president, who was an Episcopalian but visits all the churches including the synagogue up in Rhode Island.

Lloyd: So the argument really is Anglicans—Episcopalians—and I think this is true of all the mainline denominations as well… Even though they disagree about powerful things, need to be able to stay together and deal with each other in civil ways, not for the sake of compromise, but so much so for the sake of comprehensiveness, that there’s enough truth, that we need everybody in conversation. I need to know what people I disagree with are thinking, and they need to hear what I’m thinking. Truth is bigger than any of us, and we need to stay together in order to have that kind of comprehensive understanding.

Abshire: Right. You know I say on my little book, On the Grace and Power of Civility, that one of the finest people that I think will get into the kingdom of Heaven before I do is Dr. Inamori, created Kyocera, the Kyoto award winner, and he’s a Buddhist. He’s a better man than I. That doesn’t dilute my faith and belief; but I’m comfortable enough to recognize that there’s something in his faith, and I don’t give up what I’ve got that I think has brought such insight, not to the Christian experience, but to world history.

Lloyd: And the reality of God, and truth or reality itself is so vast and beyond any of our comprehension that surely your Muslim friends or Buddhist friends have something to teach you even as you remain deeply Christian.

Abshire: Right, and I think one of the unfortunate things that’s been done is… As you read Jesus, as you read Paul—the constant talk about mystery, what we can’t understand. And this… this sort of judgmental thing, where we abolish mystery… And Jesus went after the Pharisees more than the harlots. And you know, we ought to learn… that’s one thing that bothered Abraham Lincoln, you know, about some of the established churches. It was just self righteousness, when, you know, Jesus of Nazareth and Paul constantly, as did Isaiah, talked about mystery.

Lloyd: So holding on to the sense of the mystery pervading everything—which leads to a kind of intellectual and spiritual humility as we engage with other conversation partners.

Abshire: And can I just say a word about humility?

Lloyd: Yes, please.

Abshire: As a quality in the president, because I think Barack Obama has got it. Lincoln had it in abundance. You know when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he said finally I’ve signed something maybe I’ll be remembered for.

Ronald Reagan when I was brought back from NATO to get him out of the Iran-contra ditch, part of it was his humility wasn’t bound up in ego. His jokes were always on himself. And if a person has got humility I can take other Presidents I’m not getting down the list, it didn’t happen. But you can do wonders and this doesn’t mean that you’re not a courageous leader, because the cause is greater than you.

Lloyd: After one more question, I want to open things for questions from the floor. You talked about, in your book, a series of lessons for the next president and I don’t remember the list exactly, but curbing arrogance was one of those. What are some of those sort of guideposts you are handing on to the new President?

Abshire: Well some of the things he’s done, of course, trust I take the…we’ve got in our conference room, “trust is the coin in the realm.” And second thing that I get into when we have a program that involves a lot of colleges and schools and character-based leadership… If you live, you get in a hole.

Barack Obama, as good as I think he is will make a mistake, will stumble. Kennedy got into the Bay of Pigs very soon after his magnificent inaugural, but you know, he went to the public and he said, “It’s all my fault.” And those presidents that have gotten into the hole and dug it deeper have had catastrophic circumstance. And this is true in many levels of life in fact very often. Heroism is built around setbacks.

So that’s one very important thing because, if you look at the tragedies in Washington, very often it’s the cover-up and not the original act. In times of crisis you’ve got to mobilize the nation. And one of the things we say in the presidential inaugural, he must mobilize the nation. “Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” John Kennedy said. Everybody now says, what can the country do for me? And that’s important with this financial crisis. But there’s got to be a code of action. We’ve got a number of things that we can do for our country. And Roosevelt did that, Lincoln did it, and that’s got to be done.

Next, the wellsprings of this country, in science, in engineering, and education. You know, Lincoln created the National [Academy] of Science, he pushed the land grant colleges. We’ve got to reinvest in all of these for the future, to increase our innovation and our competitiveness, our K through 12. All of those are things that we’ve got to do.

Lloyd: Good…good…Let’s go to questions from the audience. Deryl?

Question: Counselor Abshire, David Dulles, Esq. In this economic unpleasantness, how do you feel about federal budget cutting, please, sir.

Abshire: The leadership group I have got involves David Walker, who’s been warning that we go broke in twenty years, and its Norm Augustine, and it’s Leon Panetta. Now, we feel that in the next two years you’ve got to stimulate, you’ve got to increase your credit, we’ve got to get out of this situation, we can’t repeat the mistakes of the New Deal.

Then, as Barack Obama said it’s a steep slope. In the next two years, there’s got to be commissions; and one of those commissions has got to be like the “Save America’s future” commission that was being set up on Capitol Hill where, if you look at the unfunded entitlements and also runaway healthcare costs and things to that nature, you’ve got a balanced Hoover-type commission; and that goes to Congress and for the castor oil, the bad medicine, and the up-and-down vote, like the closing of the bases, and that’s the only way you’ll going to get it.

Now by setting up these commissions earlier, very soon you send the signal to the central bankers of the world that America is going to face the runaway deficits and debt. And if we’re going to increase it for a period, there’s going to be a “come to reality,” and we’re going to face the bad medicine—and you know, I think some of those things involve a consumption tax, such as we were involved in the Nunn Domenici report, and other things. But again, its timing, the way we go about these things. And the near term, the long term, but laying out the plan for the next two years. It’s good to hear from you.

Question: It’s good to hear from you.

Lloyd: Yes.

Question: Hi! Your comparison of the paradigm of bipartisan-partisan comparison politically with what’s going in the Episcopal Church provoked my question. How do you feel about your Episcopal Church leadership, you know, being so strong for same-sex marriage to the point that they are somewhat excluding those who are doctrinally different, and actually making legal war on some of those who are strongly… Isn’t the Episcopal church leadership being in effect being partisan?

Abshire: Well, I’m not sure I heard all the question, but let me say, of course, I get into a controversial terrain here. Well, I think that same-sex unions [are] something that pretty broadly accepted even the President was saying that when he was governor and I can not understand why some of my gay friends want to push the marriage issue, because that was used in the campaign by the Republicans to get a backlash. And it’s counterproductive, and I think the problems in the sort of the extremes, right and left, tend to do things that are counter-productive of some of the things that they’re talking about. And it’s just… you know, people around Washington, around the country so often are there own worst enemy.

Question: Can you give us your perspective on what appropriate role of the president’s personal faith is in leading the nation?

Abshire: Personal faith? Right, I’ve written about that particularly in this book, in The Grace and Power of Civility. I think [George] Washington is the exemplar. Now Washington, you know, was in that period of about, it was between the two Great Awakenings, it was not in the evangelical period. These people were children of the Enlightenment. They all believe in a deity and some, or all, [didn’t] believe in the Trinity.

Washington did believe in a personal God. I know that for him, first in combat, what he said religion is a mainstay; and I think for people to mention their faith is appropriate, as Obama did it at Saddleback, but I thought he did it beautifully, made the declaration of his redemption and, but then, to understand the importance and value of diversity in beliefs.

But I… you know, we’ve had a whole history of presidents, and it’s interesting that it was sort of taken up as—more recently as a Republican thing, but Jimmy Carter was the first person in evangelical terms that used to express his faith a little more. And so I think it’s appropriate, with the diversity that is expressed along with it because, as Alexis de Tocqueville said, you know, this is the most religious country. And maybe I’ve gotten a little hubris here, but I think this is one of the reasons that were the most dynamic whereas Europe is falling off in this.

Question: Good morning. President-elect Obama has made some extraordinary promises in the midst of extraordinary times. And the promises he’s made will be challenging in any time but especially at this point in our nation’s history. And even with the best, smartest advisors, willingness to listen, and humility, our president’s in for a great challenge. What can no-profit organizations and ordinary American citizens who aren’t involved in the government do to help strengthen the nation?

Abshire: Good, what’s the last part of your sentence, I’m sorry?

Question: How can non-profit organizations and ordinary American citizens who are not in politics… What can we do to help strengthen our country?

Abshire: Well, I think it is very important to get a reform movement going of the Washington process, as we had in the anti-slavery movement, as we had in Ida Tarbell’s mercurial articles on the Standard Oil trust that as T.R. Roosevelt picked up, as we had it with television and Martin Luther King.

And I think the youth that has gotten involved but not…we should have four-[year]-term members of Congress. Members of Congress coming here immediately have to fundraise is bad. I mean there are some basic reforms that need to be done. And it’s those basic reforms and getting to the first part of your question, that there are a lot of things in immediate particularly when Hillary and Barack were in their campaign just like the Republicans, they were… going to the left like McCain and people going to the right… Promises to special interest, that may be important, you got to put them aside and have the discipline to get the economy back in shape, and our position in the world back in shape, and then other things can flow from there.

And I think he’s—Barack Obama has got the ability to lead his party. Eisenhower led his party towards an international party. Roosevelt led his partisan Democratic party, but the war came first. And I think he’s got that kind of leadership because if you don’t, these two parties’ wings will lead you to the ditch on the right or the ditch on the left, and this country will go into decline. That’s my view. but I’m for not-for-profits. I ran a not-for-profit foundation; I give away money, I don’t only get money; and I think that the not-for-profits need to be mobilized in this effort.

Lloyd: So just to follow up, the last part of the question was, what can the solitary individual do?

Abshire: Well, I think there are… I’d like to… Barack Obama, in his inauguration, ask each person to ask themselves what they think they can do. Now for young people, I think to get into more voluntary efforts and their range of mount there I also would create a home guard in every community for natural disaster or terrorist situations, that drill with emergency services and folk that are really the community. And I’ve got these young people that work for me, they’re just got in situation that get expedition, they would join that. And GI benefits and I think we need to create more groups and give them more virtue, you know we had Points of Light going on in some places, and that’s part of this mobilization plan.

And this Internet movement that’s been created now needs to be translated into action. But we’ve got a study at the center, we now call it the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, all that; and I’ve got somebody that was involved in that movement, the top organizer, a young person, that’s going to head that study and do that paper for us.

Question: I’m a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church from Germany and member of the visiting lector to the U.S. consular of churches; and my English is not as good probably better than your German, but I want to read out. In your latest book, The Challenge to Greatness, you said, there should be something similar to conference in security and cooperation in Europe and the Middle East and I fully suggest as well as the churches in Germany, but what should be the participation or the things that the U.S. churches and the churches of the World Council of Churches could do in this whole process? What partners do we need and what structures should be set up for the [structure] process?

Abshire: Well let me give you an example of something we did on the initiative of Congressman Frank Wolf, when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Condi Rice. We hosted a dialogue in the Holy Land, of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Cardinal McCarrick was a leader in that, and it was highly successful. It was very difficult for us to operate, because it was USAID money given to us, and so you had to clear with the consul general on the West Bank because it would be easier to get into not-for-profits that some way were involved with terrorists, but it was highly successful.

And I’m a great believer in the dialogue, but I’m a great believer in the CSCE conference on security and cooperation, which did a lot to bring the Cold War to a close because, as my co-worker in this area, Max Kampelman, who was our negotiator to that for… he was a strategic arms negotiator, we punched holes in the Iron Curtain. Now, something that we have done to through the [Landsberg?] Foundation, my executive director’s just back from medical and scientific meeting to Iran, those young Iranians and those scientists are pro American. And we’ve got one going to Syria.

So we’ve got to reach across barriers, and I think Barack Obama will do everything to open this up. And [we’ve] also been asked by Congress to set up a foundation for international understanding, which will use the information revolution around the world to bring young people together and part of that will be a dialogue of the children of Abraham because serious games, or podcasts, or smart phones, these are revolutionary weapons to break down barriers and build committee, dialogue, and higher ground.

Lloyd: One last question.

Question: Hi, I’m [Susie Barniano], I live in the neighborhood. My concern is, if the President elect is just going to be getting committees and coalitions together to study different issues, then what can you provide to me any evidence that he will actually lead and not just let this team of rivals make decisions and pull them depending of who’s the loudest and maybe the last to talk to him?

Abshire: I have studied Obama, and I don’t know him; I know the person, [names] that hired both of the Obamas, and his daughter says that he’s the finest legal man she’s ever encountered. But I’ve watched him in crisis, and in that crisis over his pass to right when he got out of line, you know, Obama went into seclusion. He wrote that speech, and his three aides were all talking about this recently, they’re chewing their fingernails, and they’re saying, gee, were just so nervous, we’re about to come apart. And Barack Obama says, you shouldn’t worry, we’ve either won or lose the election. Relax.”

He listens, but then he makes his own decisions and that’s why I say that I’m convinced now studying him and also studying Lincoln. That he’s going to be his own person, but he’s going to do it under considered advice. Now, I’ve had great optimism in certain other presidents going into office, and I’ve been disappointed. And you may say a year from now, Abshire, you were all wet. I don’t think so. I’ve studied him too carefully, and I’ve seen the way he ran this campaign. And John McCain’s a friend of mine, but there was constant dissention, there was advice here, advice there.

Obama knew where he was going to go and how he was going to move; and I think you’re going to get that calibration and those qualities that are a little bit more a reflection of a Lincoln and a Roosevelt. And if so, we’re fortunate, because we’re at a turning point in history, and the odds are so great against us; but I guess I should just close to say, you know they were at the Constitutional Conventions, they were in the first presidency, they were in 1861, they were in 1941 and we prevailed and we became a greater nation, renewed. And I believe, with the grace of God, we will do that again.

Lloyd: Thank you. This has been a wonderful conversation. I hope you all, hold your applause for just a minute you’ll get your chance, I hope you’ll come back next week when we’re going to addressed one of the key issues of what President Obama is dealing with. That’s health care. Dr. Timothy Johnson, who is a medical editor for ABC news, appears often on ABC news in the evening, on 20/20 and Nightline, will be with us to help us through one of the key issues that President Obama is going to have to address. For now we hope you linger for some coffee and conversation in the back and Dr. Abshire will be there to sign his book and to greet you and by all means join us for the service that begins at eleven fifteen. Now please join me in thanking Dr. Abshire.