September 15, 2025 • 42 mins
In this episode of Leadership and Legacy, presidential historian William Haldeman explores six defining characteristics of presidential leadership, each illustrated by a president who embodied that trait. From optimism and confidence to courage and dedication, Haldeman emphasizes how true leaders prioritize principle over popularity and understand the long-term impact of their choices. Tune in to gain insights on presidential leadership, character formation, authenticity, and what we should be looking for in the leaders of tomorrow.
Leadership and Legacy: Conversations at the George Washington Presidential Library is hosted by Washington Library Executive Director Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky. It is a production of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association and Primary Source Media. For more information about this program, go to www.GeorgeWashingtonPodcast.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lindsay Chervinsky (00:00):
What can we learn about leadership from six of
America's most iconic presidents?
Welcome to Leadership and Legacy,Conversations at the George Washington
Presidential Library at Mount Vernon.
I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky,Director of the Library.
In this podcast series, we talk withexperts about leadership and history,
how studying these stories helpsus understand our current moment,
(00:24):
and how we can apply lessons fromleaders in the past to our own lives.
Dr. William Haldeman has experiencedleadership in the private sector,
educational institutions, andthe highest levels of government.
He's worked for Democratsand Republicans in the State
Department, and at the state level.
After seeing how the sausage is made,he got his PhD and has packaged these
(00:46):
lessons into his new book, MeetingThe Moment, Inspiring Presidential
Leadership that Transformed america.
In this episode, we explore the importanceof honesty, bipartisanship, and character.
We discuss how the presidency hasa tendency to shine the brightest
of lights on the occupants ofthe Oval Office, and reveal a
person's strengths and weaknesses.
(01:07):
Bill identifies some unusualcharacteristics of leadership,
including ingenuity and optimism,which sets his approach apart.
I hope you learn somethingfrom this interesting analysis
of presidential leadership.
Well, thank you so much forjoining us at the George
Washington Presidential Library.
I'm so excited to finally get a chanceto talk to you about leadership, and
(01:27):
as someone who writes a lot aboutpresidential leadership myself, this was
such a thrill to see someone who reallysees the value in that type of work.
I'm curious when you think aboutpresidential leadership, this was
obviously a focus that you hadgoing into this book, and there are
a lot of different ways we coulddiscuss leadership, but what about.
The presidency, do you think revealscharacteristics of leadership,
(01:48):
highlights, strengths and weaknesses?
What about that positionwas most interesting to you?
Bill Haldeman (01:53):
Well, I've always been fascinated with it, and first
off, it's great to be with you.
It's something I've alwaysbeen fascinated with.
I think if you look at the bestleaders, they are people that have
tremendous leadership qualities andthey're cultivated, which I found
in this book, they're cultivatedover the course of their lifetimes.
Lindsay Chervinsky (02:07):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (02:07):
These are things that they've been building from either,
their parents have instilled in them,these are from their experiences that
they've had, and these are things thatin their key moments it has come out,
and I think if you look at key books orthings like James Barber's book, when
he talks about the presidency and talksabout, can you pull out qualities of
leadership in leaders in those moments?
(02:29):
I think you can see athrough line into leaders.
I've always been fascinated in that,and what about a leader in that moment?
What is it about them in that leadershipexperience that's gonna gravitate and make
them make the decisions that they make?
So that, to me, I, that's part andparcel of what I love about it.
Lindsay Chervinsky (02:43):
Yeah, I've always thought with, you know, the harder
the position and the bigger thechallenge is, it's almost like it holds
up a very unflattering mirror on aperson or a potentially unflattering
mirror, like it can either reallydemonstrate their incredible capacity
for strength and decision making andjudgment, which is one of the themes
that we're gonna talk about, or itcan really highlight their weaknesses.
(03:04):
And I think the presidency, becauseit's so big and so difficult, is one
of those mirrors that really revealsto us about someone, either what
they've learned or what they haven't.
Bill Haldeman (03:15):
I agree.
Yeah.
So I think, you look at someonelike Herbert Hoover, right?
And I think a great example of that,and if you look at, if you were hiring
someone to handle the Great Depression,you would've probably on paper thought
that he was the perfect person for that.
He was the great humanitarianduring World War I. He was two term
Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s.
There was no one more prepared to handlethat crisis than him, but he just didn't.
(03:39):
His weakness was his inabilityto communicate at a time when
that was what was needed.
And what we see with FDR when he comes inis this idea that, he had the ability to
resonate, the radio was coming on board.
This was a tremendous time for him tobe able to use his warm Hudson Valley
tone to get across the communicationskills that Hoover was not able to do.
(03:59):
So, I think you see there'ssome presidents that are
perfect for the moment.
Lindsay Chervinsky (04:02):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (04:03):
And they might, they may on paper seem like the right person,
but they don't have that intangible, anFDR had that, that Hoover didn't have.
Lindsay Chervinsky (04:10):
Mm-hmm.
I think that's a great point, and youknow, I always think of John Quincy
Adams as a similar president, that onpaper he had all of the skills and had
he been serving even at a different time,I think his presidency might have gone
differently, but when he was serving, itwas a moment of real shift in terms of
the political parties and the politicalculture, and people were looking for
(04:30):
sort of a quote unquote man of thepeople and someone who could speak to
their interests, and Jackson was a bitof a demagogue and really was able to
harness those energies even if his skillsdidn't necessarily match up, and so I
think that's such a great point that thetiming and skills are essential, it's
not just what someone brings to the job.
Bill Haldeman (04:46):
I think you see that in exact opposite, you see it from the,
we'd go from a Republican to a Democratwith Hoover and FDR, but you see that
with Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
Jimmy Carter on paper, a governor,very well prepared for the job,
had the temperament for it, hadthe integrity, all of the things.
But again, it came downto a communication issue.
There's a great speech in July of 1979,gave the crisis of confidence speech.
Lindsay Chervinsky (05:09):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (05:10):
And in that he was stressing that there was a crisis of
confidence in America, and part ofthat was his own leadership, and a
year later he is voted out of office.
And I think you see that again,if you lose the confidence, even
if you have a great resume, if youlose the confidence of the people,
you're gonna be voted out of office.
And I'll say another exampleis someone like Gerald Ford.
He comes in after Richard Nixon in 1974,after Nixon resigns and Ford comes in and
(05:34):
in his first state of the Union address,he says this basically, paraphrasing,
but the state of the economy was bad.
Lindsay Chervinsky (05:40):
Mm.
Bill Haldeman (05:40):
And saying that, I think you lose that, even though Ford was on
paper another, he was certainly qualifiedto be president, certainly qualified to
have another term on his own, but I thinkyou see that, the challenge with that,
if you lose the confidence of the people.
Lindsay Chervinsky (05:54):
Well, so that brings up a really interesting question, 'cause
those examples you just gave are exampleswhere the president was, I think,
actually delivering a pretty honestmessage, and in some ways they're right,
like the economy wasn't in great shapeand there was a crisis of confidence.
So, is there a way for presidentsto deliver an honest message about
where the nation is and not lose theconfidence of the American people?
Bill Haldeman (06:16):
That's a tough line to cross, right?
You see with Jimmy Carter,that perfect example of that.
I think from my own experience ingovernment, my own experience working
with leaders, I think you need tocommunicate well, and you need to
communicate often, and be authentic.
I think when you lose theauthenticity of things.
Lindsay Chervinsky (06:31):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (06:32):
That's when you struggle.
Lindsay Chervinsky (06:33):
I think maybe, and you write about this really well and I think
he's the best example of it, but it'sso hard to do, is probably FDR 'cause he
didn't ever sugarcoat the challenges ofthe Depression, and he didn't sugarcoat
the challenges of World War II, but hestill provided an optimistic message,
so maybe that suggests that it is doableit just requires an incredible political
skill, and most humans aren't capableof merging those things together.
Bill Haldeman (06:57):
Well, I think that there's, and there's a reason that
Ronald Reagan was the great communicator.
That's why people remember FDRspeeches for what they are.
I think that when you look at hisfirst fireside chat, it was in his warm
Hudson Valley tone that he was ableto resonate with Americans and give
them confidence at a time when therewas really no confidence in America.
GDP was down 30%.
(07:18):
The stock market had declined33% banks were closed.
I mean, America was at a momentwhere revolution was on the docket.
And in that sense, he had been buildingtowards that, as governor of New York, he
had learned to cultivate the radio, andhe was able to learn kind of on the fly.
So when it came time to be president,he had that experience and he used it.
(07:39):
There was 300 radio addresses he usedover the course of his presidency,
but he only did the fireside chats27 times and four in his first year.
I think the example, is you need to knowwhen to use something and when you don't.
He was able to do that by a little bitby trial and error before he became
president, so I think that helped him.
Lindsay Chervinsky (07:57):
Haldeman is one of those rare presidential historians
who has an actual background inpolitics, so I wanted to know
how that real world experiencehad impacted his historical work.
One thing he emphasized was theimportance of witnessing in real
time, how a politician handlesa crisis, and what effective
communication looks like in practice.
(08:17):
Haldeman highlighted the importanceof having a sense of history and the
needs of future generations in mind.
So you mentioned in one of your previousanswers, your government experience,
and I wanna dig into that a littlebit because that is not a standard
background for someone who writeshistory or writes about presidential
history, and so, let's start perhapswith what great leaders did you witness?
(08:39):
What great decisionmaking did you witness?
How did that teach you things?
And who did you learn from?
Bill Haldeman (08:46):
I've been fortunate to have really great experience.
I've worked at the White House.
I've worked at the State Department, theseventh floor at the State Department.
I've seen the Secretaries of State inaction, I've seen foreign leaders, I've
seen governors in action, I've seenuniversity presidents go through things.
So, I've seen crisis, which I thinkfor me, as someone who loves decision
making, loves the spirit of that,it's invaluable, I think, in terms of
(09:06):
writing history, because I think it justadds another layer into what you do.
As historians, we look at primarysources, we look at secondary
sources, we talk about these things.
I'll give you an examplethat's really helpful to me.
When I looked at Ronald Reagan's decisionaround the Berlin Wall speech, a lot of
that was the interagency process with theNational Security Council, it was with
the State Department, it was embassy inBerlin, and from my own experience, I got
(09:29):
to experience that when I was at the StateDepartment, so I could understand what
was happening, that interagency issues.
I've had those issues with folksin those halls myself, because
you're in the heat of the moment,there's the crises around that.
I just think it's helpful tohave seen that in some respects.
I'm grateful to be part of that.
A little bit of that tradition whereyou see folks like Doris Kearns
Goodwin, who was with Johnson, orArthur Esner Jr., who was with John
(09:51):
Kennedy, I think it's helpful to see it.
I don't think it's an end all be all,but I think it helps, it's just another
layer, like having an oral history.
So, I know that you were asking me some ofthe things maybe I learned in that sense.
Lindsay Chervinsky (10:00):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (10:00):
So I think for someone like George W. Bush, I had the opportunity
to work in the White House there, andI think if there was one thing I could
pull from George W. Bush in terms of aleadership message to come from that,
is he was someone that, in terms of likethe hub of his life, was something that
was very authentic, but it was his life.
It wasn't his career.
There's people who have career atthe center where you have family,
(10:22):
you could have your faith, you couldhave friends, whatever your hobbies.
He was very authentic in the sense thatin the center of his hub was his life.
And I think from all that, that madedecision making easy, it made him to be
able to govern through principle, andI found like that was really something
that was really authentic for me.
The other thing I really enjoyed abouthis leadership was his nicknames,
he had a nickname for everybody.
(10:43):
There was an authenticity with himthat I think was really great, but
also had really great experiencesand worked at the State Department
for Condoleezza Rice through HillaryClinton, so kind of a pink unicorn
in that sense to be able to go acrossparties, or transfer across parties.
Really great experiences with them.
I think you see someone like HillaryClinton, in my view, with someone that
really whip smart, someone incrediblysmart, someone that really understood and
(11:09):
asked questions and was really thoughtfulabout things and looked for new ideas
and how to make something better, I thinkthat that was something interesting.
I've also worked for Governor Christie,so I had the experience in the crises
of working on Superstorm Sandy.
So, I think if you see something in thatexperience for me was learning about
communication, and how to be very clearabout what was happening on the ground,
(11:32):
being authentic about talking to people onthe ground, what were they experiencing.
And I think one of the greatest lessonson that in terms of crisis leadership
is this idea that he wanted to returnto normalcy around after that storm.
So this was 2012, he wanted to returnto normalcy around it, and there were
three things that he wanted to do wasreturn gasoline, and get people in cars
and get buses moving, get that moving,get everyone's electricity back up and
(11:55):
running a sense of normalcy, and get allthe schools and get kids back into school.
So that was my job, was to helpget all the kids back into school.
So I think that was, he was a very,very good communicator and was very
clear to his reports about what heexpected and what needed to get done.
Lindsay Chervinsky (12:11):
I wanna pull on a couple different threads of
the things you said that I thinkbear a little bit more exploration
'cause they're really fascinating.
One was with your time with GovernorChristie in terms of the crisis
management and decision making.
What I heard you say was thathe was really good at figuring
out what were a couple of verytangible elements of daily life.
(12:31):
Not all, because obviously you have toprioritize in a crisis, but a couple of
tangible things that he could focus on andhis team could focus on, including you,
to get people back to work and to school.
And so how did you witness in anyof your number of positions when
you're in a crisis that the decisionmaking process of picking the things
to start with 'cause sometimes, youknow, the scope and magnitude of a
(12:54):
crisis, I imagine can be paralyzing.
So how did the leaders you workedwith get the ball rolling when
action is required, but there areso many different possibilities?
Bill Haldeman (13:03):
Great question.
I think, and part of that, I wouldsay Governor Christie got on top of
that in terms of looking at what thestorm was, he pulled together his
cabinet, they were very consequentialabout what was needed by the people
of New Jersey in that moment.
What was gonna get us backinto that sense, I mean, there
was devastation on the coast.
Thousands upon thousands ofhouses were destroyed, flooded.
People were out of work,people were in shelters.
(13:25):
It was a really difficult situation.
So how do you get people back intothat sense of normalcy, and I think
that was one of the first questions.
It was asking a question, right?
It starts with a question, and I thinkthat that's where he started with his
team about what does normalcy look like?
What are the routines, as you say,what are the routine things that that
need to happen in order for peopleto feel comfortable and calm and
feel like the leadership's in controllike that, that's the biggest thing.
Lindsay Chervinsky (13:48):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (13:49):
I think, people felt like he was in control, and I think that
that's when you see crises, and you startto lose people is he was very good at
communicating, but again, I'll go back toHerbert Hoover, the lack of communication,
even though he was well-meaning,I think you, you lose that sense.
Lindsay Chervinsky (14:03):
It sounds to me like one of the things that he was
really good at and, and you mentionedthis with FDR and I actually, I think
probably all of the presidents, wasunderstanding what the constituents
needed, having an understanding of whoyou are serving, and what they need.
And you know, in the case of presidents,that can be really hard because there
are so many American people and there areso many different ways to be an American
(14:24):
and so many different ways to live, andso what one community needs might not
be the same as the other, but that isa real talent to be able to understand
who you are serving, and what theyneed, especially in a moment of crisis.
Bill Haldeman (14:36):
Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
And I think you look at leaders that havethe ability to do that, and the six that
I profile in this book, I feel like theyhad a sense of not only the constituents
of the time, but they had the sense ofhistory, and so George Washington, July
2nd, 1776, as general orders talk aboutthis idea around the unborn millions,
(14:56):
and I think that each of these sixleaders have a sense of what is happening
in terms of the generation to come.
And I think there's always that in theback of their mind, like Abraham Lincoln
said, went to the state capitol in NewJersey on his way to become president and
he said there must have been somethingmore the Continental Army was fighting
for in Trenton, and I think in my view,it's this sense of the next generation is
(15:17):
my children, their children's children.
And I think the best American presidentsare the ones that can do that.
Lindsay Chervinsky (15:23):
Hmm.
Yeah, that forward thinkingelement is so important, not just
planning for their lives or theirfuture, but the nation's future.
That's hard sometimes to keep in mind,especially when there are political
crises and moments and so many thingsdemanding their attention in the moment.
Bill Haldeman (15:39):
Yeah, it goes back to a quote from John Kennedy when he talks
about the definition of judgment.
So he says "it's the perceptivenature of the future as well as
the past of what we don't know,but also, this aspect of having the
candor to admit what we don't know."
And I think it's that sense ofyou thinking about the future for
judgment, thinking about the future,but you're learning from the past in
(16:01):
order to do it, and I think that tome, that's the best presidents are
the ones that are thinking about that.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:06):
I hadn't heard that quote before, but that's very
powerful, 'cause I think you're right,that does really capture a lot of
presidential judgment in particular.
Bill Haldeman (16:13):
So that's a great speech.
Totally recommended.
It's 900 words.
It was John Kennedy.
It was January 9th, 1961, he's 11days out from his inauguration, he's
giving a speech to the MassachusettsState House, and this is his farewell.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:28):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (16:28):
Farewell speech if in a way, or thank you, speech
to the Bay State, and in thisaddress, he said that there's four
characteristics that he felt like hewas gonna be judged on as president.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:38):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (16:39):
And three of these are actually in the book.
One is integrity, so it'sintegrity, judgment, courage, and
dedication, and his definition aboutjudgment came from that speech.
I totally recommend it.
It's a really great piece of literature.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:51):
Especially because it's not too often we can
recommend a presidential speechthat is less than a thousand words.
Bill Haldeman (16:57):
And that one is a good one.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:58):
There are a couple of really good short ones, but that one
definitely needs to be added to the list.
Bill Haldeman (17:02):
Yeah, we might have to thank Ted Sorenson for
that one, but it was pretty good.
Lindsay Chervinsky (17:05):
Well, all, almost all great presidents have good speech
writers, and if we're really lucky, thensomeone like Abraham Lincoln is their
own speech writer, but not everyone needsto be a Abraham Lincoln, that's okay.
So, you know, you mentioned thatyou had a bipartisan government
career, which in this day and ageis frankly not all that common.
Are there any characteristics ofleadership that you think defy in your
(17:25):
experience from what you have seen,defy categorization across party line?
In today's highly partisan world, Iwanted to hear more about what qualities
Haldeman thought transcended party lines.
One thing he emphasized was theimportance of things done, not for
political expediency, but becausethey were the right thing to do.
(17:46):
This also brought us back againto the idea of judgment and
service to future generations.
Bill Haldeman (17:53):
In terms of equality or just in general?
Lindsay Chervinsky (17:55):
Well, just like the people you worked for.
Were there things that you saw that youthought, wow, that's really extraordinary,
that was not necessarily policy basedor partisan based, but just worth
noting for those who are listening?
Bill Haldeman (18:07):
I think it's the leaders that do things that it's
not politically expedient, but theydo it because it's right, those
are the leaders that I lean into.
The reason I've had a bipartisan, ifyou wanna call it that, it's because I
like to do good work, and I believe ingovernment, and I believe in service.
For example, a policy that touched mewas in my time in government was the
(18:28):
PEPFAR program from George W. Bush savedcountless lives, millions upon millions,
probably tens of millions across Africa.
Again, could have been somethingthat he didn't need to do that.
But it feels like an American creedaround that to do the right thing to help
others, and I think that's an exampleof that in the book, talk about Theodore
Roosevelt taking that type of experiencetoo, where he didn't need to take on
(18:49):
the eradication of natural resourcesor water and irrigation issues in the
west, but he decided to do it becausehe felt personally attached to it, it
was a passionate attachment for him.
I think the best leaders are the onesthat lean into that, that are doing things
that they feel are gonna be helpful andto move, whether it's a governor, whether
it's a president, whatever it is, they'redoing something 'cause they believe in it.
That's what I gravitate to sofar in my leadership journey.
Lindsay Chervinsky (19:11):
I think that's great.
One of the things about PEPFAR that Ialways think is so important is, you know,
there's a lot of things that the UnitedStates doesn't have to do, but we can.
And not many other nationscan, and so why not?
Bill Haldeman (19:22):
Exactly.
Hopefully that's something thatcontinues and we see the more of that.
As Ronald Reagan said, it was greatquote from him in his farewell
address to the nation in 1989.
He called it the city on the hill, andhe said that we are a tall, proud city.
We are built on rock, wind swept Godblessed and teaming with people of all
kinds, living in harmony and peace.
(19:43):
But I think that the best line aboutthat is if that city had to have
walls, those walls had doors and theywere open to anyone with the will and
the heart to get there, and I thinkwe lost some of that, and I think
it's good to get some of that back.
Lindsay Chervinsky (19:55):
Yes, that should be the American Creed.
You also mentioned that you have workedat educational institutions and so
I'm wondering if your experience withleadership, do you think that there are
different types of leadership requiredfor educational institutions or government
institutions, or do the qualities andthe abilities that we're talking about,
do they kind of apply across the boardregardless of what field someone is in?
Bill Haldeman (20:18):
I think it applies across the board.
My experience is not only personally,but from the research in this book
that I believe that there's reallynot a set criteria for leadership, I
think it depends on the person and thecircumstance, and I think you see some
occasions where optimism or courageis needed, but others dedication or
ingenuity, something to innovate throughline in all of that, in anybody is the
(20:41):
sense of judgment, and you need to havethat if you're beaming with confidence,
for example, and you have no judgment, youcould lead the country or whatever you're
doing in a completely wrong direction.
If you have a sense of ingenuity,but no judgment, you could
innovate in all the wrong places.
If you have dedication and no judgment,you could wake up with the sun and do
all the wrong things after, so to me,it's a sense of judgment in people.
(21:03):
Whether you are the commissioner ofeducation, whether you're a governor,
whether you're the president, itbegins and ends with judgment.
Heather Soubra (21:12):
Experience leadership like never before at the George
Washington Leadership Institute.
Inspired by the timeless lessons ofGeorge Washington, our programs focus
on critical skills like effectivecommunication, emotional intelligence,
adaptability, strategic visionand character-driven leadership.
(21:33):
Immerse your team in a journeythrough history while equipping
them with strategies to navigatetoday's complex challenges.
Join us at the beautiful George WashingtonPresidential Library at Mount Vernon
for a half day or full day sessions orcustomize a program to fit your needs.
Visit gwleadershipinstitute.orgto learn more.
Lindsay Chervinsky (21:59):
Haldeman's new book, Meeting The Moment, is organized around
six presidents; George Washington,Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln,
Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and RonaldReagan, and six primary sources that
epitomize their approach to leadership.
I wanted to give Haldeman the chance towalk me through what he found for each of
the six, as well as to talk a little moreabout why he organized the book that way.
(22:23):
You've taken this lifelong learningthrough experiential learning and that
you are now taking it into book form,and so I want to move forward to your
book, which is called Meeting theMoment, and we're gonna go in reverse
chronological order, 'cause I always endthe podcast with a question on Washington,
so we will end with Washington.
And what I'm found so interesting aboutthe way you organized the book was
(22:44):
one, you talked about qualities of eachpresident, but also a specific primary
source that you were focusing on.
So why did you decide on that approach?
Because one of the elements of writingI find so interesting is the craft of
organization, of how to think aboutthese ideas, how to put them together
in a package that is compelling, andI'd love to know about your process.
Bill Haldeman (23:04):
It really started as I wanted to lean into some places and spaces
where some of the most transformationaldecisions in American history happened.
So, I wanted to go into the room where,well, the room where it happened, but
for instance, like Thomas Jefferson, Iwanted to go into the White House, into
the state dining room, now it's the statedining room, but it was then his office.
And I wanted to feel what thatwas like to be in that space.
(23:26):
And what was it about that, what was hefeeling around the crisis with France?
And really for that, it came downto a letter that he wrote on April
18th, 1802, and it was a letter to hisambassador to France, Robert Livingston.
What was it about that letter?
What was it about him in that moment?
What was he experiencing?
That's how, that's the genesis of that,I just wanted to go to, what was the
(23:48):
crisis moment for each of these leaders?
And is there somethingthat attaches to that?
What is the quality that cameout in them in that moment, and
what exemplifies that quality?
In that case, it's that letter.
Or if you wanna use another example aroundRonald Reagan, it's his Berlin Wall speech
that pulls out this aspect of optimism.
But I wanted to also, when talk about aorganization, I wanted to also provide
(24:10):
a biographical sketch of these leaders.
I wanted to show where doesthis quality come from?
Did it come from their childhood?
Where did it emanate from?
So I wanted to show that, but what wasthe key document in American history that
ties to that quality that defines them?
That was the goal.
Lindsay Chervinsky (24:24):
Okay, so going in reverse order, you end with
Reagan and optimism and this speech.
Why do you think optimism was so essentialto Reagan's presidential leadership?
Bill Haldeman (24:34):
'cause it was everything throughout his life.
It started with his mother, his motherinstilled on him the sense of optimism.
It was a quality that throughout hislife, it was part and parcel of who
he was, at all of his experiences.
There wasn't always an optimistichue around it, and I think when you
look at Ronald Reagan, he came to thepresidency because he was optimistic.
It was morning in America under Reagan.
(24:55):
That was the true sense, and I thinkthat's what he, that quality, he embodied
that, and when it came to the moment ofthe Cold War, for him, it was the biggest
moment of his presidency around it.
It was that optimistic hue that came out,and I think when you talk about it for
him, it was this idea about the SovietUnion that this dominated his thought
and his process around being president.
(25:16):
And a key moment in his presidency wasthe assassination attempt on his life in
1981, and it was that sense of optimismeven in that moment that came out where he
pulled off his mask going into surgery andhe said, I hope you're all Republicans.
Right?
And then he, he asked his, heasked his wife and said, honey,
I'm sorry I forgot to duck.
It's that sense of optimism emanates that,but from that experience, he believed
(25:39):
that he was left on earth to be ableto do something about the conflict with
the Soviet Union, and he felt like thatspeech in 1987 was his moment to look
on the other side of the wall, and tellthe world and tell the people across the
wall that there was hope for them, that"tear down this wall" meant something, and
that was the optimism of Ronald Reagan.
Lindsay Chervinsky (25:58):
It's interesting 'cause you, you know, you're talking
about optimism, but the idea that oneis destined to be in a position at
a certain moment to handle a certainthing is a quality that we're gonna
talk about when we get to the nextpresident, which is FDR, but I also
think to a certain extent, especially nowbecause the presidency is so difficult,
then you have to be a little bit nutsto want to do it that every president
needs that belief that they are likethe one that can make these decisions.
(26:22):
Is that your sense too?
Bill Haldeman (26:23):
I think it's helpful.
I think that's what I've seenout of these six leaders.
I think they were the rightpeople at the right time,
Lindsay Chervinsky (26:30):
and critically they believed they were.
Bill Haldeman (26:32):
I think each of them certainly believed they were, yes.
Lindsay Chervinsky (26:34):
That's fascinating.
Okay, so FDR Confidence.
Why?
Why FDR?
Why confidence?
Bill Haldeman (26:40):
Came through again, through Lyme, through his life.
It was instilled in him goingback, he said all that I
am, goes back to the Hudson.
And I was going back to his childhoodwith his mother, instilling on him in him
that anything was within reach for FDR.
And he believed it.
I mean, even overcoming polio,other tragedies in his life
that he had overcome, he neverlost that sense of confidence.
(27:00):
And again, with the proliferation ofradio in the late 1920s, he was the right
messenger with that sense of confidence.
I don't know if there was maybe amore confident president than FDR,
and I think he just believed it, andit was a lifetime of him owning that.
And he was, again, one of these situationswhere the right person at the right time,
Lindsay Chervinsky (27:19):
Theodore Roosevelt and courage is probably usually thought
of as his physical courage, he had a,a great capacity for enduring physical
hardship that he often selectedfor himself, whether it be hunting
out west or going down the Amazon.
My favorite document that he everwrote was The Man in the Arena
speech, which is, I think all abouteveryone having to have courage.
(27:41):
Why did you select courage, and what isthe primary source that you chose for him?
Bill Haldeman (27:45):
So I, again, I think he has exemplified that throughout
his life, the things he overcame.
He was an asthmatic boy,in terms of he was sickly.
He said he taught himself how to bebrave, and therefore he was brave.
So you see the San Juan Hill and thedodging bullets with the rough riders.
All this, there's this, it's athrough line of courage in his life.
He comes into office, William McKinley hadbeen assassinated in September of 1901,
(28:10):
and Theodore Roosevelt is 42 years old.
He turns 43 in October, but in December,he is up to give his annual address to
Congress, which is now what we call theState of the Union address, and in that
address, he covered a number of differentthings from the eulogy to McKinley,
which was lovely, but he felt a personalattachment to what was happening out west.
(28:33):
For the natural resources, he had spenttime out west in Madora, North Dakota, a
beautiful place, totally recommend peoplegoing out and seeing it, but he had spent
time there because on Valentine's Day in1884, he lost his mother and his wife,
on the same day, in the same house, andhe went there to find himself, and in
doing that, he cultivated this sense of,of belief in the frontier, in forestry,
(28:58):
in wildlife, in all these types of thingsthat he felt were critical to the growth
of the United States moving forward.
He felt, the, the West over the nextcentury would define the growth of the
United States, and it did between 1910and twenty, twenty, a hundred ten years
since then, it had a 15 fold increasein population, so the West has grown
(29:18):
and it fulfilled that prophecy for him.
But he felt the eradication of naturalresources and the inability to navigate
the west in the sense of there wasno canals unless you lived next to a
river system, you couldn't live there.
There would be no Las Vegas, right?
Lindsay Chervinsky (29:32):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (29:32):
There would be none of that, so he believed
that this was necessary.
Again, he called it the mostimportant, vital, natural, or the
internal issues of the United States.
This is the most important internalissue in the United States, and
in doing so, he wanted to bringit to the cloak rooms in Congress.
He wanted to bring out these importantissues, which again, maybe not politically
(29:54):
expedient, but it was the right thingto do, he felt like this was the right
thing to do, so it was about 11, 12% ofthat draft he spent writing about these
important issues, and in doing so, heended up becoming the conservationist
president, 150 National Parks.
I, I argue in the book that it'sreally the culmination of the Louisiana
purchase with Jefferson, in that if youtake the space from Maine to Florida,
(30:18):
it was about that amount of space andland that was cultivated and protected
because of what he did, and I thinkthat's a tremendous legacy to have.
When you talk about, we talked aboutthis earlier, the children's children
and thinking about what that means formoving forward and protecting those lands.
I think that's his legacy for sure.
Lindsay Chervinsky (30:35):
I think someone said once that there have been more
books written about Abraham Lincolnthan anyone other than Jesus Christ,
which sounds about right to me.
So, you know, there's so much to be saidabout Lincoln, he was such an interesting
character, and I believe that he wasunbelievably dedicated, but I'm not
sure that's usually the first word thatpeople would think of is dedication.
(30:56):
So why dedication for Abraham Lincoln?
Bill Haldeman (30:59):
Again, you see it throughout his life, you see it in his
dedication to the soil, you see hisdedication to the Bible, you see his
dedication to his father, who he didn'thave a really great relationship with, and
then he gave him another year of lawfullabor to move the family from Indiana to
Illinois, when he was turning 17 to 18.
You see it in the love for hismother, when he says all that
(31:19):
I am I owed to her, right?
You see this in his serviceto the Black Hawk War.
One of my favorite examples of hisdedication though, he had a general
store in New Salem, Illinois,and what he said, it winked out.
It went outta business, but he calledit his national debt because at that
time in the frontier, a lot of peoplewould pick up and they would leave
the debt, they would leave it behindand disappear and go somewhere else.
(31:40):
He felt it was that important tohim that he needed to pay that
off, and from that, that's howhe got the nickname, Honest Abe.
Lindsay Chervinsky (31:46):
Mm.
Bill Haldeman (31:47):
And I think you see that in you, you see it definitely in his
experience as president, keeping the uniontogether, that was his defining feeling as
president is to keep the union together.
And it's his sense of dedication inhis Gettysburg address, which I think
defines that sense of dedicationin a speech that's 272 words.
Again, that's,
Lindsay Chervinsky (32:06):
That probably tops the list of the under 1000,
not, not necessarily in termsof brevity, but in terms of
greatness under 1000 word speeches.
Bill Haldeman (32:14):
Totally.
And we talked about that John Kennedy, whowas 900, that's still four times as much.
You see this in a speech at 272 words.
It's half an op-ed.
It is for someone who labored on everyword choice like he believed that the
difference between the right word andthe wrong word was the difference between
lightning and a lightning bug, and hebelieved in every word choice, every
(32:34):
syllable that was rolling off his tongue.
So when he puts in that incrediblespeech, the word nation, five times,
the word dedicated or dedicated sixtimes, I don't think that's an accident.
I that, that embraces his spiritof dedication to the Union and
what that meant moving forward.
Lindsay Chervinsky (32:51):
Yeah, that's nearly 5% of the words, if I'm doing my math
correctly, which is always an iffyquestion 'cause I was a historian for
a reason, but I think it's about 5% ofthe words that he used in just those
two words, which is pretty incredible.
Bill Haldeman (33:02):
Pretty incredible.
Right.
Lindsay Chervinsky (33:03):
Last but not least, although in my very humble opinion,
as listeners will know, I think leaston this list, because I have my own
strong feelings about Thomas Jefferson,but I acknowledge that in particular,
one thing he did very well, and Ithink this is probably your ingenuity
component, was to think creativelyabout expanding the nation, so why
Thomas Jefferson, and why ingenuity?
Bill Haldeman (33:22):
Well, I think that, again, that defines him going back as far as
his childhood, but you think about theingenuity around, well, I think America
itself is a startup in its own way.
It's the, the founding documents inmany ways is the epitome of creative
experimentations, you see, and Jeffersonwas at the core of writing the Declaration
of Independence, and I think you see,it was an opportunity for him, it
(33:43):
was one that he didn't see coming.
You see these presidentslike George W. Bush in 9/11.
You see Ronald Reagan gets assassinatedand the, or not assassinated, but
he, there was an attempt on hislife and, it's a pivot point, right?
Lindsay Chervinsky (33:54):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (33:55):
For Thomas Jefferson, he wrote a letter and said, we
are safely import, basically in1801, right after the election.
Lindsay Chervinsky (34:01):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (34:01):
He thought the election was good, we're good.
He didn't know that the Frenchhad just worked on a deal with,
Lindsay Chervinsky (34:06):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (34:06):
With Spain to get control of the Louisiana Territory and what
Napoleon had in store for that in termsof he caught wind and the Napoleon
wanted to send 8,000 troops, to NewOrleans in a town that only had 7,000
people, so he couldn't have that ona doorstep and feel relatively safe
because the Mississippi River at thattime was the western boundary of the US
(34:27):
that came out of the Revolutionary War.
The Mississippi itself was, as JamesMadison called it, he said it was the
Hudson, the Delaware, the Potomac,and all the navigable rivers of the
Atlantic states rolled into one.
It was everything.
Lindsay Chervinsky (34:40):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (34:40):
It was driving almost half of the produce and economy out of
New Orleans through that port, and whenSpain got a little wonky with about 10
or 15 years in there and blocking ourfreedom to navigate the river, France
then was also threatening that, and thatwas not okay with the southern states
in particular, and Jefferson knew it,he knew he had to do something about it.
So he stepped in, used hisingenuity around, he had been a
(35:04):
diplomat in France for five years.
He knew a number of the key players whocould get to Napoleon, which I think
is really important in this, usinghis diplomatic skills, so not only
demarching his Robert Livingston, whichwe talked about earlier, but this aspect
of working a back channel through agentleman named DuPont and knowing that
the DuPont was going to work the waythrough into Napoleon, because the worst
(35:27):
thing that Jefferson could do in thatspace was try to embarrass Napoleon.
Lindsay Chervinsky (35:32):
Mm mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (35:32):
He couldn't do it.
So in that sense, he knew that itwas an active war, but he was able
to work through back channels anduse his ingenuity around this.
Send James Monroe, to help seal the deal.
So many different things he was able todo again, shows his ingenuity, showed
how important this was to secure thisland, they, he really, really just
wanted New Orleans and freedom tonavigate the Mississippi and it ended
(35:55):
up, the rest of it fell in his lap,which is an amazing, serendipitous
thing and we'll take it as Americans.
Lindsay Chervinsky (36:00):
It strikes me that in a lot of ways his ingenuity could
also be described as a reflection onwhat you were talking about, about the
opportunity of the moment, like he wascreative with seizing the opportunity
of the moment, even if it wasn'tthe opportunity, he was expecting.
Bill Haldeman (36:15):
A thousand percent, and I think given that he seized it because
he knew, he saw what it would mean tobe a continental nation, he saw what it
would mean to, again, going back to thisunborn millions, the generations to come.
America had that abilitybecause of Thomas Jefferson.
Lindsay Chervinsky (36:30):
That's so interesting.
Okay.
Before we get to George Washington, Ilike to always provide our listeners
with a book recommendation, somethingthat has inspired you on leadership
or about a leader or has taughtyou something different to end new.
Bill Haldeman (36:42):
I would argue James Barber, going back to my graduate school days, is
the presidential character, and it tiesinto this book a little bit in the sense
of can we predict what leaders are goingto do based on what they've done before?
And I think it's a tremendous book.
It's written in the 1970s, a littledated now, but I think the spirit of
this helped inspire this book, and Ithink it's worth people even just to pick
(37:05):
it up and just look at the thesis andthink about are there qualities that we
can see in our leaders and when we pickthem, do we feel like they're gonna show
up in those particular moments when weneed them, when they're facing crisis?
Lindsay Chervinsky (37:16):
That's such an important message for voters and the
American people today, because you know,you gave multiple examples over the course
of our conversation about often whatpresidents end up grappling with are not
the things they ran their campaigns on.
George W. Bush is the ultimate exampleof running really on an economic
message, and then September 11th happensand his presidency is defined almost
(37:38):
entirely by foreign policy, and he'scertainly not the only one, you know,
Joe Biden ran on restoring normalcyand then, less than a year into his
administration, Russia invaded Ukraine.
So there's just so much that we don'tknow that we can't ask presidents to opine
on, 'Cause we cannot predict the future.
And so character is the one thingwe can know about and therefore I
(37:59):
think should be pretty importantfactor with our decision making.
Bill Haldeman (38:02):
A thousand percent.
And that's why I wrote this book becauseI think, I don't think, I know, the
character does matter and in thesequalities, in these leaders, we're
transformational not only for America,but what we are to be in the future,
and hopefully they inspire leaders.
And readers of this generation to thinkabout how can I use my le- is there
something I'm cultivating in myself,
Lindsay Chervinsky (38:21):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (38:21):
Across my life that I can use to help me meet my moment, whether
that's in a, that could be in your career,that could be in a boardroom, it could
be in a classroom, it could be anywhere.
It could be taking a moral, ethicalstand, but I think that that character
does matter and a, and it has provento be transformational for America.
Lindsay Chervinsky (38:37):
So true, so true.
Okay, so final question.
When you think of George Washingtonin leadership, what do you think of?
Bill Haldeman (38:43):
I think of his judgment, and I think that that's what I wrote about
in this book, is the sense that GeorgeWashington didn't get everything right.
He didn't get everything right,but he had the innate ability
to get the big things right.
He got Washington's Crossing right, heturned over his sword in 1783, and I
think the most important decision anypresident has ever made, is his decision
(39:04):
to step down after two terms, becauseI think in doing so, he showed that
the office, it belonged to the people.
It didn't belong to anybody else.
No one had the right to the presidency.
I think that that's really important,and I think his judgment also gave us an
incredible document, which I would putup against any document in the founding
error in the sense of his farewelladdress in the lessons that can be
(39:25):
gleaned from that 6,000 words probablytakes you 40, 45 minutes to get through.
But there's a lot of great messages inthere about what we aspire to be as a
nation that still are relevant today asthe 1790s were some of the most divisive
periods or divisive period in Americanhistory, and we can learn from him,
and I think his judgment shows that.
I mean, you look at someone like Jeffersonor Adams was classically trained at
(39:48):
the best universities and colleges inthe country, and Washington had nothing
more than a grade school education.
He learned from experience.
To go back to the quote from JohnKennedy, he learned from his mistakes
and the mistakes of others, and I thinkthat that's such a great quality, and
I would just tack onto that is hisapproach to decision making, which I love.
I loved decision making, but he had a huband spoke approach to decision making, and
(40:10):
I think it's really cool to think abouthow he would think through decisions.
He never acted, as Thomas Jeffersonsaid, I won't belabor Thomas
Jefferson quotes on you, but I willsay that he never acted until every
consideration or every circumstance,as he said, was maturely weighed.
Lindsay Chervinsky (40:28):
Mm. Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (40:29):
And then John Marshall, just to tack onto that,
once he made that decision, he didso deciding and he didn't look back.
I think that's, its judgment and Ithink leaders can really learn from
Washington in taking all the informationmake a decision and not look back.
You made the best decision you canat that time, and that's what I
would say about George Washington.
Lindsay Chervinsky (40:47):
Well, that is an excellent place to leave it.
Thank you so much for joiningus, I so appreciate your time and
sharing your work and I know theaudience will enjoy it as well.
Bill Haldeman (40:55):
Thanks so much.
Enjoyed it.
Lindsay Chervinsky (40:58):
Thank you for joining us this week on Leadership
and Legacy, and thank you so muchagain to our guest, William Haldeman.
You can find his new book, Meetingthe Moment, Inspiring Presidential
Leadership That TransformedAmerica, wherever you buy books.
You can also check out a recording ofhis recent book, talk at Mount Vernon
on the Mount Vernon YouTube channel.
I'm your host, Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky.
(41:21):
Leadership and Legacy, conversations atthe George Washington Presidential Library
is a production of the Mount Vernon LadiesAssociation and Primary Source Media.
In the spirit of George Washington'sleadership, we feature the perspectives of
leaders from across industries and fields.
As such, the thoughts expressed in thispodcast are solely the views of our
guests and do not reflect the opinionsof the Mount Vernon Ladies Association.
(41:44):
To learn more about Washington'sleadership example, or to find out how
you can bring your team to the GeorgeWashington Presidential Library, visit
gwleadershipinstitute.org or to findmore great podcasts from Mount Vernon,
visit georgewashingtonpodcast.com.
You can also explore the work of PrimarySource Media at primarysourcemedia.com.
(42:06):
Join us in two weeks forour next great conversation.
What can we learn about leadership from six of
America's most iconic presidents?
Welcome to Leadership and Legacy,Conversations at the George Washington
Presidential Library at Mount Vernon.
I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky,Director of the Library.
In this podcast series, we talk withexperts about leadership and history,
how studying these stories helpsus understand our current moment,
(00:24):
and how we can apply lessons fromleaders in the past to our own lives.
Dr. William Haldeman has experiencedleadership in the private sector,
educational institutions, andthe highest levels of government.
He's worked for Democratsand Republicans in the State
Department, and at the state level.
After seeing how the sausage is made,he got his PhD and has packaged these
(00:46):
lessons into his new book, MeetingThe Moment, Inspiring Presidential
Leadership that Transformed america.
In this episode, we explore the importanceof honesty, bipartisanship, and character.
We discuss how the presidency hasa tendency to shine the brightest
of lights on the occupants ofthe Oval Office, and reveal a
person's strengths and weaknesses.
(01:07):
Bill identifies some unusualcharacteristics of leadership,
including ingenuity and optimism,which sets his approach apart.
I hope you learn somethingfrom this interesting analysis
of presidential leadership.
Well, thank you so much forjoining us at the George
Washington Presidential Library.
I'm so excited to finally get a chanceto talk to you about leadership, and
(01:27):
as someone who writes a lot aboutpresidential leadership myself, this was
such a thrill to see someone who reallysees the value in that type of work.
I'm curious when you think aboutpresidential leadership, this was
obviously a focus that you hadgoing into this book, and there are
a lot of different ways we coulddiscuss leadership, but what about.
The presidency, do you think revealscharacteristics of leadership,
(01:48):
highlights, strengths and weaknesses?
What about that positionwas most interesting to you?
Bill Haldeman (01:53):
Well, I've always been fascinated with it, and first
off, it's great to be with you.
It's something I've alwaysbeen fascinated with.
I think if you look at the bestleaders, they are people that have
tremendous leadership qualities andthey're cultivated, which I found
in this book, they're cultivatedover the course of their lifetimes.
Lindsay Chervinsky (02:07):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (02:07):
These are things that they've been building from either,
their parents have instilled in them,these are from their experiences that
they've had, and these are things thatin their key moments it has come out,
and I think if you look at key books orthings like James Barber's book, when
he talks about the presidency and talksabout, can you pull out qualities of
leadership in leaders in those moments?
(02:29):
I think you can see athrough line into leaders.
I've always been fascinated in that,and what about a leader in that moment?
What is it about them in that leadershipexperience that's gonna gravitate and make
them make the decisions that they make?
So that, to me, I, that's part andparcel of what I love about it.
Lindsay Chervinsky (02:43):
Yeah, I've always thought with, you know, the harder
the position and the bigger thechallenge is, it's almost like it holds
up a very unflattering mirror on aperson or a potentially unflattering
mirror, like it can either reallydemonstrate their incredible capacity
for strength and decision making andjudgment, which is one of the themes
that we're gonna talk about, or itcan really highlight their weaknesses.
(03:04):
And I think the presidency, becauseit's so big and so difficult, is one
of those mirrors that really revealsto us about someone, either what
they've learned or what they haven't.
Bill Haldeman (03:15):
I agree.
Yeah.
So I think, you look at someonelike Herbert Hoover, right?
And I think a great example of that,and if you look at, if you were hiring
someone to handle the Great Depression,you would've probably on paper thought
that he was the perfect person for that.
He was the great humanitarianduring World War I. He was two term
Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s.
There was no one more prepared to handlethat crisis than him, but he just didn't.
(03:39):
His weakness was his inabilityto communicate at a time when
that was what was needed.
And what we see with FDR when he comes inis this idea that, he had the ability to
resonate, the radio was coming on board.
This was a tremendous time for him tobe able to use his warm Hudson Valley
tone to get across the communicationskills that Hoover was not able to do.
(03:59):
So, I think you see there'ssome presidents that are
perfect for the moment.
Lindsay Chervinsky (04:02):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (04:03):
And they might, they may on paper seem like the right person,
but they don't have that intangible, anFDR had that, that Hoover didn't have.
Lindsay Chervinsky (04:10):
Mm-hmm.
I think that's a great point, and youknow, I always think of John Quincy
Adams as a similar president, that onpaper he had all of the skills and had
he been serving even at a different time,I think his presidency might have gone
differently, but when he was serving, itwas a moment of real shift in terms of
the political parties and the politicalculture, and people were looking for
(04:30):
sort of a quote unquote man of thepeople and someone who could speak to
their interests, and Jackson was a bitof a demagogue and really was able to
harness those energies even if his skillsdidn't necessarily match up, and so I
think that's such a great point that thetiming and skills are essential, it's
not just what someone brings to the job.
Bill Haldeman (04:46):
I think you see that in exact opposite, you see it from the,
we'd go from a Republican to a Democratwith Hoover and FDR, but you see that
with Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
Jimmy Carter on paper, a governor,very well prepared for the job,
had the temperament for it, hadthe integrity, all of the things.
But again, it came downto a communication issue.
There's a great speech in July of 1979,gave the crisis of confidence speech.
Lindsay Chervinsky (05:09):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (05:10):
And in that he was stressing that there was a crisis of
confidence in America, and part ofthat was his own leadership, and a
year later he is voted out of office.
And I think you see that again,if you lose the confidence, even
if you have a great resume, if youlose the confidence of the people,
you're gonna be voted out of office.
And I'll say another exampleis someone like Gerald Ford.
He comes in after Richard Nixon in 1974,after Nixon resigns and Ford comes in and
(05:34):
in his first state of the Union address,he says this basically, paraphrasing,
but the state of the economy was bad.
Lindsay Chervinsky (05:40):
Mm.
Bill Haldeman (05:40):
And saying that, I think you lose that, even though Ford was on
paper another, he was certainly qualifiedto be president, certainly qualified to
have another term on his own, but I thinkyou see that, the challenge with that,
if you lose the confidence of the people.
Lindsay Chervinsky (05:54):
Well, so that brings up a really interesting question, 'cause
those examples you just gave are exampleswhere the president was, I think,
actually delivering a pretty honestmessage, and in some ways they're right,
like the economy wasn't in great shapeand there was a crisis of confidence.
So, is there a way for presidentsto deliver an honest message about
where the nation is and not lose theconfidence of the American people?
Bill Haldeman (06:16):
That's a tough line to cross, right?
You see with Jimmy Carter,that perfect example of that.
I think from my own experience ingovernment, my own experience working
with leaders, I think you need tocommunicate well, and you need to
communicate often, and be authentic.
I think when you lose theauthenticity of things.
Lindsay Chervinsky (06:31):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (06:32):
That's when you struggle.
Lindsay Chervinsky (06:33):
I think maybe, and you write about this really well and I think
he's the best example of it, but it'sso hard to do, is probably FDR 'cause he
didn't ever sugarcoat the challenges ofthe Depression, and he didn't sugarcoat
the challenges of World War II, but hestill provided an optimistic message,
so maybe that suggests that it is doableit just requires an incredible political
skill, and most humans aren't capableof merging those things together.
Bill Haldeman (06:57):
Well, I think that there's, and there's a reason that
Ronald Reagan was the great communicator.
That's why people remember FDRspeeches for what they are.
I think that when you look at hisfirst fireside chat, it was in his warm
Hudson Valley tone that he was ableto resonate with Americans and give
them confidence at a time when therewas really no confidence in America.
GDP was down 30%.
(07:18):
The stock market had declined33% banks were closed.
I mean, America was at a momentwhere revolution was on the docket.
And in that sense, he had been buildingtowards that, as governor of New York, he
had learned to cultivate the radio, andhe was able to learn kind of on the fly.
So when it came time to be president,he had that experience and he used it.
(07:39):
There was 300 radio addresses he usedover the course of his presidency,
but he only did the fireside chats27 times and four in his first year.
I think the example, is you need to knowwhen to use something and when you don't.
He was able to do that by a little bitby trial and error before he became
president, so I think that helped him.
Lindsay Chervinsky (07:57):
Haldeman is one of those rare presidential historians
who has an actual background inpolitics, so I wanted to know
how that real world experiencehad impacted his historical work.
One thing he emphasized was theimportance of witnessing in real
time, how a politician handlesa crisis, and what effective
communication looks like in practice.
(08:17):
Haldeman highlighted the importanceof having a sense of history and the
needs of future generations in mind.
So you mentioned in one of your previousanswers, your government experience,
and I wanna dig into that a littlebit because that is not a standard
background for someone who writeshistory or writes about presidential
history, and so, let's start perhapswith what great leaders did you witness?
(08:39):
What great decisionmaking did you witness?
How did that teach you things?
And who did you learn from?
Bill Haldeman (08:46):
I've been fortunate to have really great experience.
I've worked at the White House.
I've worked at the State Department, theseventh floor at the State Department.
I've seen the Secretaries of State inaction, I've seen foreign leaders, I've
seen governors in action, I've seenuniversity presidents go through things.
So, I've seen crisis, which I thinkfor me, as someone who loves decision
making, loves the spirit of that,it's invaluable, I think, in terms of
(09:06):
writing history, because I think it justadds another layer into what you do.
As historians, we look at primarysources, we look at secondary
sources, we talk about these things.
I'll give you an examplethat's really helpful to me.
When I looked at Ronald Reagan's decisionaround the Berlin Wall speech, a lot of
that was the interagency process with theNational Security Council, it was with
the State Department, it was embassy inBerlin, and from my own experience, I got
(09:29):
to experience that when I was at the StateDepartment, so I could understand what
was happening, that interagency issues.
I've had those issues with folksin those halls myself, because
you're in the heat of the moment,there's the crises around that.
I just think it's helpful tohave seen that in some respects.
I'm grateful to be part of that.
A little bit of that tradition whereyou see folks like Doris Kearns
Goodwin, who was with Johnson, orArthur Esner Jr., who was with John
(09:51):
Kennedy, I think it's helpful to see it.
I don't think it's an end all be all,but I think it helps, it's just another
layer, like having an oral history.
So, I know that you were asking me some ofthe things maybe I learned in that sense.
Lindsay Chervinsky (10:00):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (10:00):
So I think for someone like George W. Bush, I had the opportunity
to work in the White House there, andI think if there was one thing I could
pull from George W. Bush in terms of aleadership message to come from that,
is he was someone that, in terms of likethe hub of his life, was something that
was very authentic, but it was his life.
It wasn't his career.
There's people who have career atthe center where you have family,
(10:22):
you could have your faith, you couldhave friends, whatever your hobbies.
He was very authentic in the sense thatin the center of his hub was his life.
And I think from all that, that madedecision making easy, it made him to be
able to govern through principle, andI found like that was really something
that was really authentic for me.
The other thing I really enjoyed abouthis leadership was his nicknames,
he had a nickname for everybody.
(10:43):
There was an authenticity with himthat I think was really great, but
also had really great experiencesand worked at the State Department
for Condoleezza Rice through HillaryClinton, so kind of a pink unicorn
in that sense to be able to go acrossparties, or transfer across parties.
Really great experiences with them.
I think you see someone like HillaryClinton, in my view, with someone that
really whip smart, someone incrediblysmart, someone that really understood and
(11:09):
asked questions and was really thoughtfulabout things and looked for new ideas
and how to make something better, I thinkthat that was something interesting.
I've also worked for Governor Christie,so I had the experience in the crises
of working on Superstorm Sandy.
So, I think if you see something in thatexperience for me was learning about
communication, and how to be very clearabout what was happening on the ground,
(11:32):
being authentic about talking to people onthe ground, what were they experiencing.
And I think one of the greatest lessonson that in terms of crisis leadership
is this idea that he wanted to returnto normalcy around after that storm.
So this was 2012, he wanted to returnto normalcy around it, and there were
three things that he wanted to do wasreturn gasoline, and get people in cars
and get buses moving, get that moving,get everyone's electricity back up and
(11:55):
running a sense of normalcy, and get allthe schools and get kids back into school.
So that was my job, was to helpget all the kids back into school.
So I think that was, he was a very,very good communicator and was very
clear to his reports about what heexpected and what needed to get done.
Lindsay Chervinsky (12:11):
I wanna pull on a couple different threads of
the things you said that I thinkbear a little bit more exploration
'cause they're really fascinating.
One was with your time with GovernorChristie in terms of the crisis
management and decision making.
What I heard you say was thathe was really good at figuring
out what were a couple of verytangible elements of daily life.
(12:31):
Not all, because obviously you have toprioritize in a crisis, but a couple of
tangible things that he could focus on andhis team could focus on, including you,
to get people back to work and to school.
And so how did you witness in anyof your number of positions when
you're in a crisis that the decisionmaking process of picking the things
to start with 'cause sometimes, youknow, the scope and magnitude of a
(12:54):
crisis, I imagine can be paralyzing.
So how did the leaders you workedwith get the ball rolling when
action is required, but there areso many different possibilities?
Bill Haldeman (13:03):
Great question.
I think, and part of that, I wouldsay Governor Christie got on top of
that in terms of looking at what thestorm was, he pulled together his
cabinet, they were very consequentialabout what was needed by the people
of New Jersey in that moment.
What was gonna get us backinto that sense, I mean, there
was devastation on the coast.
Thousands upon thousands ofhouses were destroyed, flooded.
People were out of work,people were in shelters.
(13:25):
It was a really difficult situation.
So how do you get people back intothat sense of normalcy, and I think
that was one of the first questions.
It was asking a question, right?
It starts with a question, and I thinkthat that's where he started with his
team about what does normalcy look like?
What are the routines, as you say,what are the routine things that that
need to happen in order for peopleto feel comfortable and calm and
feel like the leadership's in controllike that, that's the biggest thing.
Lindsay Chervinsky (13:48):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (13:49):
I think, people felt like he was in control, and I think that
that's when you see crises, and you startto lose people is he was very good at
communicating, but again, I'll go back toHerbert Hoover, the lack of communication,
even though he was well-meaning,I think you, you lose that sense.
Lindsay Chervinsky (14:03):
It sounds to me like one of the things that he was
really good at and, and you mentionedthis with FDR and I actually, I think
probably all of the presidents, wasunderstanding what the constituents
needed, having an understanding of whoyou are serving, and what they need.
And you know, in the case of presidents,that can be really hard because there
are so many American people and there areso many different ways to be an American
(14:24):
and so many different ways to live, andso what one community needs might not
be the same as the other, but that isa real talent to be able to understand
who you are serving, and what theyneed, especially in a moment of crisis.
Bill Haldeman (14:36):
Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
And I think you look at leaders that havethe ability to do that, and the six that
I profile in this book, I feel like theyhad a sense of not only the constituents
of the time, but they had the sense ofhistory, and so George Washington, July
2nd, 1776, as general orders talk aboutthis idea around the unborn millions,
(14:56):
and I think that each of these sixleaders have a sense of what is happening
in terms of the generation to come.
And I think there's always that in theback of their mind, like Abraham Lincoln
said, went to the state capitol in NewJersey on his way to become president and
he said there must have been somethingmore the Continental Army was fighting
for in Trenton, and I think in my view,it's this sense of the next generation is
(15:17):
my children, their children's children.
And I think the best American presidentsare the ones that can do that.
Lindsay Chervinsky (15:23):
Hmm.
Yeah, that forward thinkingelement is so important, not just
planning for their lives or theirfuture, but the nation's future.
That's hard sometimes to keep in mind,especially when there are political
crises and moments and so many thingsdemanding their attention in the moment.
Bill Haldeman (15:39):
Yeah, it goes back to a quote from John Kennedy when he talks
about the definition of judgment.
So he says "it's the perceptivenature of the future as well as
the past of what we don't know,but also, this aspect of having the
candor to admit what we don't know."
And I think it's that sense ofyou thinking about the future for
judgment, thinking about the future,but you're learning from the past in
(16:01):
order to do it, and I think that tome, that's the best presidents are
the ones that are thinking about that.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:06):
I hadn't heard that quote before, but that's very
powerful, 'cause I think you're right,that does really capture a lot of
presidential judgment in particular.
Bill Haldeman (16:13):
So that's a great speech.
Totally recommended.
It's 900 words.
It was John Kennedy.
It was January 9th, 1961, he's 11days out from his inauguration, he's
giving a speech to the MassachusettsState House, and this is his farewell.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:28):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (16:28):
Farewell speech if in a way, or thank you, speech
to the Bay State, and in thisaddress, he said that there's four
characteristics that he felt like hewas gonna be judged on as president.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:38):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (16:39):
And three of these are actually in the book.
One is integrity, so it'sintegrity, judgment, courage, and
dedication, and his definition aboutjudgment came from that speech.
I totally recommend it.
It's a really great piece of literature.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:51):
Especially because it's not too often we can
recommend a presidential speechthat is less than a thousand words.
Bill Haldeman (16:57):
And that one is a good one.
Lindsay Chervinsky (16:58):
There are a couple of really good short ones, but that one
definitely needs to be added to the list.
Bill Haldeman (17:02):
Yeah, we might have to thank Ted Sorenson for
that one, but it was pretty good.
Lindsay Chervinsky (17:05):
Well, all, almost all great presidents have good speech
writers, and if we're really lucky, thensomeone like Abraham Lincoln is their
own speech writer, but not everyone needsto be a Abraham Lincoln, that's okay.
So, you know, you mentioned thatyou had a bipartisan government
career, which in this day and ageis frankly not all that common.
Are there any characteristics ofleadership that you think defy in your
(17:25):
experience from what you have seen,defy categorization across party line?
In today's highly partisan world, Iwanted to hear more about what qualities
Haldeman thought transcended party lines.
One thing he emphasized was theimportance of things done, not for
political expediency, but becausethey were the right thing to do.
(17:46):
This also brought us back againto the idea of judgment and
service to future generations.
Bill Haldeman (17:53):
In terms of equality or just in general?
Lindsay Chervinsky (17:55):
Well, just like the people you worked for.
Were there things that you saw that youthought, wow, that's really extraordinary,
that was not necessarily policy basedor partisan based, but just worth
noting for those who are listening?
Bill Haldeman (18:07):
I think it's the leaders that do things that it's
not politically expedient, but theydo it because it's right, those
are the leaders that I lean into.
The reason I've had a bipartisan, ifyou wanna call it that, it's because I
like to do good work, and I believe ingovernment, and I believe in service.
For example, a policy that touched mewas in my time in government was the
(18:28):
PEPFAR program from George W. Bush savedcountless lives, millions upon millions,
probably tens of millions across Africa.
Again, could have been somethingthat he didn't need to do that.
But it feels like an American creedaround that to do the right thing to help
others, and I think that's an exampleof that in the book, talk about Theodore
Roosevelt taking that type of experiencetoo, where he didn't need to take on
(18:49):
the eradication of natural resourcesor water and irrigation issues in the
west, but he decided to do it becausehe felt personally attached to it, it
was a passionate attachment for him.
I think the best leaders are the onesthat lean into that, that are doing things
that they feel are gonna be helpful andto move, whether it's a governor, whether
it's a president, whatever it is, they'redoing something 'cause they believe in it.
That's what I gravitate to sofar in my leadership journey.
Lindsay Chervinsky (19:11):
I think that's great.
One of the things about PEPFAR that Ialways think is so important is, you know,
there's a lot of things that the UnitedStates doesn't have to do, but we can.
And not many other nationscan, and so why not?
Bill Haldeman (19:22):
Exactly.
Hopefully that's something thatcontinues and we see the more of that.
As Ronald Reagan said, it was greatquote from him in his farewell
address to the nation in 1989.
He called it the city on the hill, andhe said that we are a tall, proud city.
We are built on rock, wind swept Godblessed and teaming with people of all
kinds, living in harmony and peace.
(19:43):
But I think that the best line aboutthat is if that city had to have
walls, those walls had doors and theywere open to anyone with the will and
the heart to get there, and I thinkwe lost some of that, and I think
it's good to get some of that back.
Lindsay Chervinsky (19:55):
Yes, that should be the American Creed.
You also mentioned that you have workedat educational institutions and so
I'm wondering if your experience withleadership, do you think that there are
different types of leadership requiredfor educational institutions or government
institutions, or do the qualities andthe abilities that we're talking about,
do they kind of apply across the boardregardless of what field someone is in?
Bill Haldeman (20:18):
I think it applies across the board.
My experience is not only personally,but from the research in this book
that I believe that there's reallynot a set criteria for leadership, I
think it depends on the person and thecircumstance, and I think you see some
occasions where optimism or courageis needed, but others dedication or
ingenuity, something to innovate throughline in all of that, in anybody is the
(20:41):
sense of judgment, and you need to havethat if you're beaming with confidence,
for example, and you have no judgment, youcould lead the country or whatever you're
doing in a completely wrong direction.
If you have a sense of ingenuity,but no judgment, you could
innovate in all the wrong places.
If you have dedication and no judgment,you could wake up with the sun and do
all the wrong things after, so to me,it's a sense of judgment in people.
(21:03):
Whether you are the commissioner ofeducation, whether you're a governor,
whether you're the president, itbegins and ends with judgment.
Heather Soubra (21:12):
Experience leadership like never before at the George
Washington Leadership Institute.
Inspired by the timeless lessons ofGeorge Washington, our programs focus
on critical skills like effectivecommunication, emotional intelligence,
adaptability, strategic visionand character-driven leadership.
(21:33):
Immerse your team in a journeythrough history while equipping
them with strategies to navigatetoday's complex challenges.
Join us at the beautiful George WashingtonPresidential Library at Mount Vernon
for a half day or full day sessions orcustomize a program to fit your needs.
Visit gwleadershipinstitute.orgto learn more.
Lindsay Chervinsky (21:59):
Haldeman's new book, Meeting The Moment, is organized around
six presidents; George Washington,Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln,
Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and RonaldReagan, and six primary sources that
epitomize their approach to leadership.
I wanted to give Haldeman the chance towalk me through what he found for each of
the six, as well as to talk a little moreabout why he organized the book that way.
(22:23):
You've taken this lifelong learningthrough experiential learning and that
you are now taking it into book form,and so I want to move forward to your
book, which is called Meeting theMoment, and we're gonna go in reverse
chronological order, 'cause I always endthe podcast with a question on Washington,
so we will end with Washington.
And what I'm found so interesting aboutthe way you organized the book was
(22:44):
one, you talked about qualities of eachpresident, but also a specific primary
source that you were focusing on.
So why did you decide on that approach?
Because one of the elements of writingI find so interesting is the craft of
organization, of how to think aboutthese ideas, how to put them together
in a package that is compelling, andI'd love to know about your process.
Bill Haldeman (23:04):
It really started as I wanted to lean into some places and spaces
where some of the most transformationaldecisions in American history happened.
So, I wanted to go into the room where,well, the room where it happened, but
for instance, like Thomas Jefferson, Iwanted to go into the White House, into
the state dining room, now it's the statedining room, but it was then his office.
And I wanted to feel what thatwas like to be in that space.
(23:26):
And what was it about that, what was hefeeling around the crisis with France?
And really for that, it came downto a letter that he wrote on April
18th, 1802, and it was a letter to hisambassador to France, Robert Livingston.
What was it about that letter?
What was it about him in that moment?
What was he experiencing?
That's how, that's the genesis of that,I just wanted to go to, what was the
(23:48):
crisis moment for each of these leaders?
And is there somethingthat attaches to that?
What is the quality that cameout in them in that moment, and
what exemplifies that quality?
In that case, it's that letter.
Or if you wanna use another example aroundRonald Reagan, it's his Berlin Wall speech
that pulls out this aspect of optimism.
But I wanted to also, when talk about aorganization, I wanted to also provide
(24:10):
a biographical sketch of these leaders.
I wanted to show where doesthis quality come from?
Did it come from their childhood?
Where did it emanate from?
So I wanted to show that, but what wasthe key document in American history that
ties to that quality that defines them?
That was the goal.
Lindsay Chervinsky (24:24):
Okay, so going in reverse order, you end with
Reagan and optimism and this speech.
Why do you think optimism was so essentialto Reagan's presidential leadership?
Bill Haldeman (24:34):
'cause it was everything throughout his life.
It started with his mother, his motherinstilled on him the sense of optimism.
It was a quality that throughout hislife, it was part and parcel of who
he was, at all of his experiences.
There wasn't always an optimistichue around it, and I think when you
look at Ronald Reagan, he came to thepresidency because he was optimistic.
It was morning in America under Reagan.
(24:55):
That was the true sense, and I thinkthat's what he, that quality, he embodied
that, and when it came to the moment ofthe Cold War, for him, it was the biggest
moment of his presidency around it.
It was that optimistic hue that came out,and I think when you talk about it for
him, it was this idea about the SovietUnion that this dominated his thought
and his process around being president.
(25:16):
And a key moment in his presidency wasthe assassination attempt on his life in
1981, and it was that sense of optimismeven in that moment that came out where he
pulled off his mask going into surgery andhe said, I hope you're all Republicans.
Right?
And then he, he asked his, heasked his wife and said, honey,
I'm sorry I forgot to duck.
It's that sense of optimism emanates that,but from that experience, he believed
(25:39):
that he was left on earth to be ableto do something about the conflict with
the Soviet Union, and he felt like thatspeech in 1987 was his moment to look
on the other side of the wall, and tellthe world and tell the people across the
wall that there was hope for them, that"tear down this wall" meant something, and
that was the optimism of Ronald Reagan.
Lindsay Chervinsky (25:58):
It's interesting 'cause you, you know, you're talking
about optimism, but the idea that oneis destined to be in a position at
a certain moment to handle a certainthing is a quality that we're gonna
talk about when we get to the nextpresident, which is FDR, but I also
think to a certain extent, especially nowbecause the presidency is so difficult,
then you have to be a little bit nutsto want to do it that every president
needs that belief that they are likethe one that can make these decisions.
(26:22):
Is that your sense too?
Bill Haldeman (26:23):
I think it's helpful.
I think that's what I've seenout of these six leaders.
I think they were the rightpeople at the right time,
Lindsay Chervinsky (26:30):
and critically they believed they were.
Bill Haldeman (26:32):
I think each of them certainly believed they were, yes.
Lindsay Chervinsky (26:34):
That's fascinating.
Okay, so FDR Confidence.
Why?
Why FDR?
Why confidence?
Bill Haldeman (26:40):
Came through again, through Lyme, through his life.
It was instilled in him goingback, he said all that I
am, goes back to the Hudson.
And I was going back to his childhoodwith his mother, instilling on him in him
that anything was within reach for FDR.
And he believed it.
I mean, even overcoming polio,other tragedies in his life
that he had overcome, he neverlost that sense of confidence.
(27:00):
And again, with the proliferation ofradio in the late 1920s, he was the right
messenger with that sense of confidence.
I don't know if there was maybe amore confident president than FDR,
and I think he just believed it, andit was a lifetime of him owning that.
And he was, again, one of these situationswhere the right person at the right time,
Lindsay Chervinsky (27:19):
Theodore Roosevelt and courage is probably usually thought
of as his physical courage, he had a,a great capacity for enduring physical
hardship that he often selectedfor himself, whether it be hunting
out west or going down the Amazon.
My favorite document that he everwrote was The Man in the Arena
speech, which is, I think all abouteveryone having to have courage.
(27:41):
Why did you select courage, and what isthe primary source that you chose for him?
Bill Haldeman (27:45):
So I, again, I think he has exemplified that throughout
his life, the things he overcame.
He was an asthmatic boy,in terms of he was sickly.
He said he taught himself how to bebrave, and therefore he was brave.
So you see the San Juan Hill and thedodging bullets with the rough riders.
All this, there's this, it's athrough line of courage in his life.
He comes into office, William McKinley hadbeen assassinated in September of 1901,
(28:10):
and Theodore Roosevelt is 42 years old.
He turns 43 in October, but in December,he is up to give his annual address to
Congress, which is now what we call theState of the Union address, and in that
address, he covered a number of differentthings from the eulogy to McKinley,
which was lovely, but he felt a personalattachment to what was happening out west.
(28:33):
For the natural resources, he had spenttime out west in Madora, North Dakota, a
beautiful place, totally recommend peoplegoing out and seeing it, but he had spent
time there because on Valentine's Day in1884, he lost his mother and his wife,
on the same day, in the same house, andhe went there to find himself, and in
doing that, he cultivated this sense of,of belief in the frontier, in forestry,
(28:58):
in wildlife, in all these types of thingsthat he felt were critical to the growth
of the United States moving forward.
He felt, the, the West over the nextcentury would define the growth of the
United States, and it did between 1910and twenty, twenty, a hundred ten years
since then, it had a 15 fold increasein population, so the West has grown
(29:18):
and it fulfilled that prophecy for him.
But he felt the eradication of naturalresources and the inability to navigate
the west in the sense of there wasno canals unless you lived next to a
river system, you couldn't live there.
There would be no Las Vegas, right?
Lindsay Chervinsky (29:32):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (29:32):
There would be none of that, so he believed
that this was necessary.
Again, he called it the mostimportant, vital, natural, or the
internal issues of the United States.
This is the most important internalissue in the United States, and
in doing so, he wanted to bringit to the cloak rooms in Congress.
He wanted to bring out these importantissues, which again, maybe not politically
(29:54):
expedient, but it was the right thingto do, he felt like this was the right
thing to do, so it was about 11, 12% ofthat draft he spent writing about these
important issues, and in doing so, heended up becoming the conservationist
president, 150 National Parks.
I, I argue in the book that it'sreally the culmination of the Louisiana
purchase with Jefferson, in that if youtake the space from Maine to Florida,
(30:18):
it was about that amount of space andland that was cultivated and protected
because of what he did, and I thinkthat's a tremendous legacy to have.
When you talk about, we talked aboutthis earlier, the children's children
and thinking about what that means formoving forward and protecting those lands.
I think that's his legacy for sure.
Lindsay Chervinsky (30:35):
I think someone said once that there have been more
books written about Abraham Lincolnthan anyone other than Jesus Christ,
which sounds about right to me.
So, you know, there's so much to be saidabout Lincoln, he was such an interesting
character, and I believe that he wasunbelievably dedicated, but I'm not
sure that's usually the first word thatpeople would think of is dedication.
(30:56):
So why dedication for Abraham Lincoln?
Bill Haldeman (30:59):
Again, you see it throughout his life, you see it in his
dedication to the soil, you see hisdedication to the Bible, you see his
dedication to his father, who he didn'thave a really great relationship with, and
then he gave him another year of lawfullabor to move the family from Indiana to
Illinois, when he was turning 17 to 18.
You see it in the love for hismother, when he says all that
(31:19):
I am I owed to her, right?
You see this in his serviceto the Black Hawk War.
One of my favorite examples of hisdedication though, he had a general
store in New Salem, Illinois,and what he said, it winked out.
It went outta business, but he calledit his national debt because at that
time in the frontier, a lot of peoplewould pick up and they would leave
the debt, they would leave it behindand disappear and go somewhere else.
(31:40):
He felt it was that important tohim that he needed to pay that
off, and from that, that's howhe got the nickname, Honest Abe.
Lindsay Chervinsky (31:46):
Mm.
Bill Haldeman (31:47):
And I think you see that in you, you see it definitely in his
experience as president, keeping the uniontogether, that was his defining feeling as
president is to keep the union together.
And it's his sense of dedication inhis Gettysburg address, which I think
defines that sense of dedicationin a speech that's 272 words.
Again, that's,
Lindsay Chervinsky (32:06):
That probably tops the list of the under 1000,
not, not necessarily in termsof brevity, but in terms of
greatness under 1000 word speeches.
Bill Haldeman (32:14):
Totally.
And we talked about that John Kennedy, whowas 900, that's still four times as much.
You see this in a speech at 272 words.
It's half an op-ed.
It is for someone who labored on everyword choice like he believed that the
difference between the right word andthe wrong word was the difference between
lightning and a lightning bug, and hebelieved in every word choice, every
(32:34):
syllable that was rolling off his tongue.
So when he puts in that incrediblespeech, the word nation, five times,
the word dedicated or dedicated sixtimes, I don't think that's an accident.
I that, that embraces his spiritof dedication to the Union and
what that meant moving forward.
Lindsay Chervinsky (32:51):
Yeah, that's nearly 5% of the words, if I'm doing my math
correctly, which is always an iffyquestion 'cause I was a historian for
a reason, but I think it's about 5% ofthe words that he used in just those
two words, which is pretty incredible.
Bill Haldeman (33:02):
Pretty incredible.
Right.
Lindsay Chervinsky (33:03):
Last but not least, although in my very humble opinion,
as listeners will know, I think leaston this list, because I have my own
strong feelings about Thomas Jefferson,but I acknowledge that in particular,
one thing he did very well, and Ithink this is probably your ingenuity
component, was to think creativelyabout expanding the nation, so why
Thomas Jefferson, and why ingenuity?
Bill Haldeman (33:22):
Well, I think that, again, that defines him going back as far as
his childhood, but you think about theingenuity around, well, I think America
itself is a startup in its own way.
It's the, the founding documents inmany ways is the epitome of creative
experimentations, you see, and Jeffersonwas at the core of writing the Declaration
of Independence, and I think you see,it was an opportunity for him, it
(33:43):
was one that he didn't see coming.
You see these presidentslike George W. Bush in 9/11.
You see Ronald Reagan gets assassinatedand the, or not assassinated, but
he, there was an attempt on hislife and, it's a pivot point, right?
Lindsay Chervinsky (33:54):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (33:55):
For Thomas Jefferson, he wrote a letter and said, we
are safely import, basically in1801, right after the election.
Lindsay Chervinsky (34:01):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (34:01):
He thought the election was good, we're good.
He didn't know that the Frenchhad just worked on a deal with,
Lindsay Chervinsky (34:06):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (34:06):
With Spain to get control of the Louisiana Territory and what
Napoleon had in store for that in termsof he caught wind and the Napoleon
wanted to send 8,000 troops, to NewOrleans in a town that only had 7,000
people, so he couldn't have that ona doorstep and feel relatively safe
because the Mississippi River at thattime was the western boundary of the US
(34:27):
that came out of the Revolutionary War.
The Mississippi itself was, as JamesMadison called it, he said it was the
Hudson, the Delaware, the Potomac,and all the navigable rivers of the
Atlantic states rolled into one.
It was everything.
Lindsay Chervinsky (34:40):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (34:40):
It was driving almost half of the produce and economy out of
New Orleans through that port, and whenSpain got a little wonky with about 10
or 15 years in there and blocking ourfreedom to navigate the river, France
then was also threatening that, and thatwas not okay with the southern states
in particular, and Jefferson knew it,he knew he had to do something about it.
So he stepped in, used hisingenuity around, he had been a
(35:04):
diplomat in France for five years.
He knew a number of the key players whocould get to Napoleon, which I think
is really important in this, usinghis diplomatic skills, so not only
demarching his Robert Livingston, whichwe talked about earlier, but this aspect
of working a back channel through agentleman named DuPont and knowing that
the DuPont was going to work the waythrough into Napoleon, because the worst
(35:27):
thing that Jefferson could do in thatspace was try to embarrass Napoleon.
Lindsay Chervinsky (35:32):
Mm mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (35:32):
He couldn't do it.
So in that sense, he knew that itwas an active war, but he was able
to work through back channels anduse his ingenuity around this.
Send James Monroe, to help seal the deal.
So many different things he was able todo again, shows his ingenuity, showed
how important this was to secure thisland, they, he really, really just
wanted New Orleans and freedom tonavigate the Mississippi and it ended
(35:55):
up, the rest of it fell in his lap,which is an amazing, serendipitous
thing and we'll take it as Americans.
Lindsay Chervinsky (36:00):
It strikes me that in a lot of ways his ingenuity could
also be described as a reflection onwhat you were talking about, about the
opportunity of the moment, like he wascreative with seizing the opportunity
of the moment, even if it wasn'tthe opportunity, he was expecting.
Bill Haldeman (36:15):
A thousand percent, and I think given that he seized it because
he knew, he saw what it would mean tobe a continental nation, he saw what it
would mean to, again, going back to thisunborn millions, the generations to come.
America had that abilitybecause of Thomas Jefferson.
Lindsay Chervinsky (36:30):
That's so interesting.
Okay.
Before we get to George Washington, Ilike to always provide our listeners
with a book recommendation, somethingthat has inspired you on leadership
or about a leader or has taughtyou something different to end new.
Bill Haldeman (36:42):
I would argue James Barber, going back to my graduate school days, is
the presidential character, and it tiesinto this book a little bit in the sense
of can we predict what leaders are goingto do based on what they've done before?
And I think it's a tremendous book.
It's written in the 1970s, a littledated now, but I think the spirit of
this helped inspire this book, and Ithink it's worth people even just to pick
(37:05):
it up and just look at the thesis andthink about are there qualities that we
can see in our leaders and when we pickthem, do we feel like they're gonna show
up in those particular moments when weneed them, when they're facing crisis?
Lindsay Chervinsky (37:16):
That's such an important message for voters and the
American people today, because you know,you gave multiple examples over the course
of our conversation about often whatpresidents end up grappling with are not
the things they ran their campaigns on.
George W. Bush is the ultimate exampleof running really on an economic
message, and then September 11th happensand his presidency is defined almost
(37:38):
entirely by foreign policy, and he'scertainly not the only one, you know,
Joe Biden ran on restoring normalcyand then, less than a year into his
administration, Russia invaded Ukraine.
So there's just so much that we don'tknow that we can't ask presidents to opine
on, 'Cause we cannot predict the future.
And so character is the one thingwe can know about and therefore I
(37:59):
think should be pretty importantfactor with our decision making.
Bill Haldeman (38:02):
A thousand percent.
And that's why I wrote this book becauseI think, I don't think, I know, the
character does matter and in thesequalities, in these leaders, we're
transformational not only for America,but what we are to be in the future,
and hopefully they inspire leaders.
And readers of this generation to thinkabout how can I use my le- is there
something I'm cultivating in myself,
Lindsay Chervinsky (38:21):
Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (38:21):
Across my life that I can use to help me meet my moment, whether
that's in a, that could be in your career,that could be in a boardroom, it could
be in a classroom, it could be anywhere.
It could be taking a moral, ethicalstand, but I think that that character
does matter and a, and it has provento be transformational for America.
Lindsay Chervinsky (38:37):
So true, so true.
Okay, so final question.
When you think of George Washingtonin leadership, what do you think of?
Bill Haldeman (38:43):
I think of his judgment, and I think that that's what I wrote about
in this book, is the sense that GeorgeWashington didn't get everything right.
He didn't get everything right,but he had the innate ability
to get the big things right.
He got Washington's Crossing right, heturned over his sword in 1783, and I
think the most important decision anypresident has ever made, is his decision
(39:04):
to step down after two terms, becauseI think in doing so, he showed that
the office, it belonged to the people.
It didn't belong to anybody else.
No one had the right to the presidency.
I think that that's really important,and I think his judgment also gave us an
incredible document, which I would putup against any document in the founding
error in the sense of his farewelladdress in the lessons that can be
(39:25):
gleaned from that 6,000 words probablytakes you 40, 45 minutes to get through.
But there's a lot of great messages inthere about what we aspire to be as a
nation that still are relevant today asthe 1790s were some of the most divisive
periods or divisive period in Americanhistory, and we can learn from him,
and I think his judgment shows that.
I mean, you look at someone like Jeffersonor Adams was classically trained at
(39:48):
the best universities and colleges inthe country, and Washington had nothing
more than a grade school education.
He learned from experience.
To go back to the quote from JohnKennedy, he learned from his mistakes
and the mistakes of others, and I thinkthat that's such a great quality, and
I would just tack onto that is hisapproach to decision making, which I love.
I loved decision making, but he had a huband spoke approach to decision making, and
(40:10):
I think it's really cool to think abouthow he would think through decisions.
He never acted, as Thomas Jeffersonsaid, I won't belabor Thomas
Jefferson quotes on you, but I willsay that he never acted until every
consideration or every circumstance,as he said, was maturely weighed.
Lindsay Chervinsky (40:28):
Mm. Mm-hmm.
Bill Haldeman (40:29):
And then John Marshall, just to tack onto that,
once he made that decision, he didso deciding and he didn't look back.
I think that's, its judgment and Ithink leaders can really learn from
Washington in taking all the informationmake a decision and not look back.
You made the best decision you canat that time, and that's what I
would say about George Washington.
Lindsay Chervinsky (40:47):
Well, that is an excellent place to leave it.
Thank you so much for joiningus, I so appreciate your time and
sharing your work and I know theaudience will enjoy it as well.
Bill Haldeman (40:55):
Thanks so much.
Enjoyed it.
Lindsay Chervinsky (40:58):
Thank you for joining us this week on Leadership
and Legacy, and thank you so muchagain to our guest, William Haldeman.
You can find his new book, Meetingthe Moment, Inspiring Presidential
Leadership That TransformedAmerica, wherever you buy books.
You can also check out a recording ofhis recent book, talk at Mount Vernon
on the Mount Vernon YouTube channel.
I'm your host, Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky.
(41:21):
Leadership and Legacy, conversations atthe George Washington Presidential Library
is a production of the Mount Vernon LadiesAssociation and Primary Source Media.
In the spirit of George Washington'sleadership, we feature the perspectives of
leaders from across industries and fields.
As such, the thoughts expressed in thispodcast are solely the views of our
guests and do not reflect the opinionsof the Mount Vernon Ladies Association.
(41:44):
To learn more about Washington'sleadership example, or to find out how
you can bring your team to the GeorgeWashington Presidential Library, visit
gwleadershipinstitute.org or to findmore great podcasts from Mount Vernon,
visit georgewashingtonpodcast.com.
You can also explore the work of PrimarySource Media at primarysourcemedia.com.
(42:06):
Join us in two weeks forour next great conversation.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.