An American Prometheus

I have at long last finished An American Prometheus, the Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Prometheus we remember as the Greek hero who angered Zeus by giving fire and presumably light to humans. His punishment was to be chained to a rock where on a daily basis birds of prey came to eat out his stomach. Robert Oppenheimer, colloquially known as “the father of the A-bomb” was similarly punished by a McCarthy-inspired inquisition which resulted in removal of his Atomic Energy Commission security clearance.

A lengthy and carefully crafted biography turns on two points of time in the life of Robert Oppenheimer, the first being the creation of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos New Mexico in 1945 and the second being Oppenheimer's administrative hearing, in effect a trial, contemporaneous with the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954. In his years prior to Los Alamos we have a detailed description of privilege and brilliance, years at Harvard, studies with professors whose names are as familiar as Neils Bohr and others and the intellectual life of Berkeley and Europe. Oppenheimer is intense, intellectual, overbearing, superior, oversexed and perhaps somewhat amoral. His personal life could be generously called a failure. Oppenheimer was at least a “fellow traveler” with Communists in the 1930's, and the authors may have given him the benefit of the doubt as to those years. Oppenheimer was, however, at the right place at the right time to lead the United States in a race against Germany in development of atomic weapons.

As the European war wound down in 1945 the race against the Germans becomes a race for its own sake. The project was shifted to a weapon to be used against the Japanese, and although some scientists expressed concerns about the use of the bomb, the debate about its use has been wider and more general since 1945 than at the time. There is no evidence that either Oppenheimer or Truman had any reservations about the Alamogordo test on July 16, 1945 or any serious or lingering concerns prior to August 6, 1945. Afterwards, seeing the certainty of nuclear buildups, Oppenheimer opposed development of the hydrogen “super” bombs, for which opposition he was labeled as a security risk.

Oppenheimer’s fall came in the form of a 1954 hearing on removal of his AEC security clearance. Orchestrated by Lewis Strauss, AEC Chairman the hearing violated every standard of due process or fundamental fairness, and the divided panel ultimately found that Oppenheimer had given inconsistent accounts, years apart, of a 1942 meeting in which he was approached about sharing atomic secrets with the Soviets, a suggestion he immediately rejected. In the end he was found unsuited for a security clearance in a wave of societal paranoia, not because of anything he had done but on account of telling different versions of events to protect a friend. Not the event itself, but the telling of it, in effect the coverup. Shades of Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby. “American Prometheus” is a suitable title.

The World We Want

Peter Karoff has written a not-very-big book giving voice to multiple viewpoints on private philanthropy, and describing through conversations with various people their views of the goals and means of private charitable giving.

For 20 years Peter has given himself to organizing thoughts around philanthropy, and as the philanthropic world as at once become more diverse and more donor-centered, Peter through The Philanthropic Initiative has been tailoring giving programs to individual donors and expanding the types and degrees of philanthropic giving. A list of the “good guys” might start with Peter.

In contemplating The World We Want Peter has assembled voices who speak from different perspectives on different issues, people who have devoted their resources or their professional lives to envisioning and working toward The World We Want. How those different peoples’ visions compare and contrast is really quite interesting, and at the end of each discussion Peter presents “Reader’s Guide Questions”, challenging the reader to put himself in the book, and not infrequently subtly challenging his interviewee’s views.

Karoff’s conversations are probing, and although they may to some extent beg the question of exactly what world we want, there is enough communality of issues and a common perhaps bourgeoise sense that there are things which can be done to make it better.

Likewise each of the conversations reveals something about the world, more about the speaker and something about the philanthropic system. It seems, for example that dollars are not the scarcest resource. Programs with measurable and sustainable results and an appropriate ideological underpinning seem to be in the shortest supply. It is clear that India and China have made strides in the last decades towards reducing poverty, largely through private economic growth. In Africa, even according to Peggy Dulamy, poverty is increasing notwithstanding the considerable and reasonably well funded efforts of so many groups.

But perhaps the clearest thoughts are the expressions of the speakers – donors, program managers, social workers, and what motivates them. I was occasionally troubled by the combination of entitlement and its opposite but fellow-traveler, guilt, and a political anger and the obligatory race-baiting which seemed to be the lingua franca. The United States, great Satan, takes a general pummelling from all, and perhaps unsurprisingly to the greatest degree from those who have enjoyed its fruits to the greatest extent. What I would have hoped for, the missing ingredient was – humility, except, perhaps in the case of Sister Margaret Leonard, and perhaps gratitude.

Ultimately the visions of the world we want vary. Pierre Omydar, founder of Ebay credits the auction site with “economic self-empowerment”, and his charitable foundation expects to invest in initiatives that promote individual self-empowerment. Why are we not surprised that a person who had made a reported $10 billion from Ebay might find that Ebay is the solution to the problems of the world?

Amy Goldman believes that philanthropy can make poverty disappear, all evidence to the contrary. Good for her. Shirley Strong is not happy with the human species and seeks transformation of inner instincts. That is a harder vision. John Abele believes in doing well by doing good, which is hard to deny, if ultimately convenient to the highly respected Mr. Abele. Melinda Marble of The Philanthropic Initiative matches resources with needs to allow donors to express their own visions. The donors, providers, facilitators, experts and the neediest people of the world intersect, and it is little wonder that the visions vary. It is nice to have a chance to hear them.