Terry Babcock-Lumish (PA '96) writes on geography while stranded in Rome due to volcanic ash: 

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=355803&CategoryId=13303

Dear Scholars,

Over the last two months, the Truman Scholar community has become larger and stronger. Sixty 2010 Scholars have joined our community, Scholars from every decade have attended events across the country, and soon, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of Truman Scholars Leadership Week with a Reunion Weekend for Scholars from all years of selection.

It is always exciting to watch our community expand. On March 30, Truman Scholarship Foundation President Madeleine K. Albright announced the selection of 60 new Truman Scholars from among nearly 600 candidates. The students come from diverse background and will graduate from some of the country's largest public universities and smallest private colleges, but they all share a commitment to public service. We welcome these talented young people to our community of more than 2,500 Truman Scholars and look forward to watching them advance in their academic and professional lives.

This year, Truman Scholar selection season served as an opportunity to reconnect more Scholars than ever before. In addition to the finalist dinners hosted in many cities around the country, the Truman Scholars Association organized a number of informal meet-and-greet events for Scholars. It was my pleasure to meet with nearly 150 Scholars over the course of my travels for regional interview panels. A number of photographs have been posted on the Truman Scholars Association website. Due to these events, and the launch of this newsletter, Scholars have reached out to let us know what they are up to (see Class Notes) and to contribute pieces to the Truman Scholars Blog (see Harry and Health Care). If you would like to contribute something - an update about yourself or a piece for publication - please reach out to TSA@trumanscholars.org or to me directly. 

The excitement continues to grow with the Truman Scholar Reunion Weekend, a celebration of the 20th anniversary of Truman Scholars Leadership Week (TSLW), fast approaching. Scholars from all classes are welcome to attend, and I am proud to announce that at least one other member of the Class of 1977 (besides me) has already registered! For those Scholars who have fond memories of TSLW, either as a Scholar or Senior Scholar, or who've always wanted to see what it's all about, this Reunion will be a great opportunity to experience TSLW, either again or for the first time. We are excited to welcome Jeffrey Toobin (NY '80), noted legal analyst and best-selling author, as our keynote speaker, and to work with the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum to arrange special behind-the-scenes tours for Reunion Scholars. The registration deadline of April 29 is fast approaching, so register right away!

Thank you for all you do to support the Truman Scholars community. I look forward to reconnecting with you soon - hopefully as early as the Reunion in May!

Sincerely,

Frederick Slabach (MS '77)
Executive Secretary
Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation

Tom Burack (NH ‘80), Commissioner for the State of New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services, was recently elected Secretary/Treasurer of the Environmental Council of the States, the national organization of the environmental commissioners/directors from the 50 states and territories. Tom also chaired the Climate Change Policy Task Force established by the Governor to develop a Climate Action Plan (CAP) for the state, and now chairs the NH Energy and Climate Collaborative.

Bill Halter (AR '81), Arkansas Lieutenant Governor, is running for U.S. Senate: http://billhalter.com.

Chris Coons (DE '83), County Executive of New Castle County, Delaware, is running for U.S. Senate: http://www.chriscoons.com.

Ted Deutch (FL '86), Florida State Senator, is running for U.S. Congress: http://www.tedforcongress.com.

Lisa Boulden Williams (IL ’89) was recently promoted to Senior Vice President of Affordable Housing at The Habitat Company. She is responsible for managing all aspects of the company's Affordable Housing line of business, which includes 2,292 units of subsidized senior and family housing in nine Chicago communities. Lisa is always happy to speak with Scholars about nonprofit or housing opportunities in Chicago. Feel free to reach out at lwilliams@habitat.com.

Lauren Lien (TX '04) was selected as a finalist in the Washington Post's Peep Show IV contest.

Dena Simmons (CT ’04) recently left the classroom as a middle school teacher in the South Bronx and started Doctoral program at Teachers College, Columbia University in Health Education. Dena received the 2010 Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans and will be a 2010 Education Pioneers fellow this summer.

Catherine Neale (VA '05), an MBA student at Harvard, was featured on the HBS website: http://www.hbs.edu/mba/profiles/students/2010/cneale.html.

Ryan Quarles (KY '05) is running for Kentucky State Representative: http://www.ryanquarles.com.

Rob Sand (IA '05), a third-year law student at The University of Iowa, was featured on the UI website: http://www.uiowa.edu/be-remarkable/portfolio/people/sand-r.html.

Please submit updates about yourself and other scholars to TSA@trumanscholars.org. 

Contributed by Wendy R. Leibowitz

“I have had some bitter disappointments as president, but the one that has troubled me most, in a personal way, has been the failure to defeat organized opposition to a national compulsory health insurance program.”

-Letter, cited in Poen, Monte M.: Strictly Personal and Confidential: The Letters Harry Truman Never Mailed, Boston: Little Brown, ed. 1982. See also:  http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/pdf/AfDJR3314.pdf

Following the health care reform debate of 2009 was difficult enough, but one thing made it harder for some Truman Scholars: the failure of many media outlets to mention Harry S. Truman as the first president to champion national obligatory health insurance coverage. Many publications and electronic services mentioned Clinton’s failed attempt, but the references to “HillaryCare” far outnumbered references to “HarryCare.”  (OK, that term did not exist when Truman held office. But shouldn’t it have been invoked in 2009?) Truman’s efforts, over many years, to obtain national compulsory health insurance were strikingly more similar to the current administration’s efforts than more modern efforts had been.

Within a year of taking office, Truman called for compulsory health insurance for all, funded by payroll deductions. All citizens would receive medical and hospital services regardless of ability to pay. The plan went nowhere. Actually, it went nowhere twice—reform efforts failed in both his first term (1945-1949) and his second term (1949-1953).

The first time he proposed it, Truman simply did not have the stature or the personal influence over Congress to bring such a change about.  He had been vice president for only 82 days when President Franklin Roosevelt died. Truman’s image was of someone who had become president by a “wild accident,” in the words of a newspaper columnist of the day, Max Lerner. David McCullough, in his best-selling biography, Truman, explains that Truman’s plain-speaking style—a stark contrast to FDR’s more elegant speech—did not help polish Truman’s image as a powerful statesman who could steer the ship of state well, let alone into the unknown waters of universal health insurance. Truman himself stated to the press corps, shortly after taking the oath of office: "Boys, if you ever pray, pray for me now. I don't know if you fellas ever had a load of hay fall on you, but when they told me what happened yesterday, I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me." After Truman left office, his honesty came to be admired, but at the outset of his presidency, the “I’m just a man from Missouri” talk did not increase people’s confidence in his abilities.

Truman’s relations with Congress were rocky, and his poll numbers low. Still, in November 1945, Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund to be run by the federal government. The fund would be optional and open to all. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. Truman argued that the federal government should play a role in health care, saying that, “The health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility.”

For the first time in our country’s history, Congress had before it an official administration proposal for a general program of national health insurance: the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill. Truman called national health insurance a cornerstone of “The Fair Deal.” The idea in general was popular: a poll published in Forbes magazine showed 74 percent of the public favoring such a plan, and a Gallup poll showed 59 percent favored some kind of broad national program of health insurance.

But the plan couldn’t even get a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee. The hearings in the Senate were bitter and divisive in ways that might sound familiar today. The acrimony did not help further a civil discussion of the issues. In the 1946 congressional elections, the New Deal-Fair Deal programs were a major campaign focus. The Republicans won their first majority in Congress since 1932 using the slogan, “Had Enough?”

Subsequent years solidified the opposition to government health insurance. Organized labor turned to employers to provide health care for their employees. The American Medical Association asserted some of the same arguments that helped kill “HillaryCare”: the United States already had the highest standards of medical care in the world. While there were some problems, great progress was being made at addressing them within the free enterprise system. Second, government control of medical care would undermine the existing system (which was the best system in the world, etc.)  Additionally, universal health insurance would be so expensive that it might bankrupt a country that needed to rebuild Europe after the war, fight Communism abroad and at home, and strengthen the free enterprise system. Finally, the AMA felt it was unnecessary: private insurance was capable of doing the job. The doctors’ organization distributed millions of pamphlets and won endorsements from almost 2,000 organizations, from the American Bar Association and the American Dental Association through the Catholic Church and the General Federation of Women’s Clubs. Support for national health insurance evaporated.
Even after Truman won a stunning electoral victory in 1948, with national health care as a new plank in the Democratic platform, the plan could not make it out of committee. His “Whistle Stop Tour” of the country—9,505 miles, through 18 states, delivering 73 speeches—helped to restore a (small) Democratic majority in Congress. But other concerns, from ant-Communism to the newly shaky economy to the Korean War, took precedence. By the election of 1950, a conservative postwar Congress married health insurance to patriotism. Opposition to the private insurance system was portrayed as un-American and "revolutionary," particularly by the American Medical Association.

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson traveled to Independence, Missouri, to sign the new Medicare bill at the Truman Library so a frail Truman could be in attendance. According to McCullough’s biography, Truman sat with a cane in his lap as Johnson signed the law for health insurance for the elderly that Truman had championed (for all) two decades ago.  McCullough writes that Truman said, “You have made me a very, very happy man.”

Wendy R. Leibowitz (DC ’80) is a lawyer and writer in Washington, DC.

If you would like to conduct an interview or write a feature for the Truman Scholars Blog, please contact TSA@trumanscholars.org.

Minneapolis-area Truman Scholars met with finalists for dinner on March 9, the day before the finalist interviews.

On the heels of the recent Truman Scholar meet-and-greets around the country, Scholars have continued to gather. 

On April 1, a group of six Washington, DC-area Truman Scholars met for lunch. Those present ranged from the second year the Scholarship was awarded, 1978, to the second-to-last year, 2009. 

Dan Sichel (MI '81) of the Federal Reserve Board offered a summary of what happened in the United States financial crisis of 2007-2008 from the perspective of the Fed, and led a discussion.

If you are interested in organizing an informal Truman Scholar gathering in your community, and you would like help identifying local area Scholars, please contact Anthony Shop at reunions@trumanscholars.org.

For the second piece in this series, Jeffrey Toobin (NY ’80), noted legal analyst and bestselling author, was interviewed by Anthony Vitarelli (NJ ’04), law clerk to Judge Thomas B. Griffith of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

Toobin serves as senior legal analysis for CNN and as a staff writer for The New Yorker, where he has covered legal affairs since 1993. A prolific writer, Toobin has authored numerous acclaimed essays and books. His latest, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, earned the 2008 J. Anthony Lukas Prize for Nonfiction from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. Toobin graduated from HarvardCollege and Harvard Law School. 

Vitarelli recently graduated from Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of The Yale Law Journal. He will join the Criminal Division of the Justice Department in the fall of 2010. 

Interview with
Jeffrey Toobin (NY ’80), Noted Legal Analyst and Best-selling Author
By Anthony Vitarelli (NJ ’04), Law Clerk
April 12, 2010 

Anthony Vitarelli: Do you view the judicial confirmation process as a one-way ratchet of partisanship, or do you think there is a way that a President—either this President or one in the future—and members of the Senate could make the judicial confirmation process more civil? 

Jeffrey Toobin: I don’t think partisanship is necessarily a bad thing. These are important issues and important disputes. There is aWashington phenomenon that people think disagreement is inherently bad. I don’t buy that at all. 

Sure, if Barack Obama nominated a Republican to be on the Supreme Court, that would eliminate the fight and the partisanship. But one reason we have elections is so the President can put people who are ideologically simpatico on the Supreme Court. Barack Obama, like every other President, plans on doing that. Now, it may be more or less difficult to get this person confirmed, but I certainly don’t think he should back away because there may be some unpleasantness. 

Vitarelli: Let me probe that a little more. It seems that in the last few years—you could trace it back either to Justice Thomas’s confirmation hearings or some would point to the filibuster of Miguel Estrada—that there are some nominations that seem like they would not have been so discordant a few decades ago. Now, for instance, many circuit court nominees are getting a lot more attention than they would have in the past. It seems the rhetoric has continued to ratchet up, especially in light of anonymous holds that can be placed on nominees. 

Toobin: I think it’s true that circuit court nominations have been more closely scrutinized in recent decades. But there have been a lot of Supreme Court nomination fights since the beginning of the Republic, [such as] in 1920. There were Haynsworth and Carswell under Nixon, Robert Bork under Reagan, and then Thomas. 

In fact, the last several nominations have been fairly civil. Yes, I think we have passed the day when—like Justice Stevens—nominees get confirmed 98 to nothing. But, was there ever any real chance that Sonia Sotomayor was not going to be confirmed? I don’t think so. 

Vitarelli: Since you mentioned Justice Stevens, I’m curious what your thoughts are on what has made Justice Stevens effective at garnering majorities in cases like Hamdan and Boumediene? If this President were seeking to replicate that aspect of Justice Stevens's temperament, what would he look for in a nominee's career to date? 

Toobin: One of the myths of Supreme Court confirmations, or Supreme Court appointments, is that there are very good predictive tests of how people will turn out as justices. I mean, look at Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens started out on the bench as kind of a lone eccentric and turned into a tremendous consensus builder. Through the course of all his decades, there were a couple of different kinds of justices that he was. 

Obviously, it would be best not to nominate a reclusive scholar, but it is hard to predict what kind of personality would move the very small electorate that is the Supreme Court, especially when you’re largely talking about only one persuadable target. That’s really guesswork. Any nominee that is nominated in 2010 is likely to serve with many justices whose identities we don’t even know yet. All this talk about the kind of personality you want is really guesswork at best. 

Vitarelli: In terms of the current careers that potential nominees have, the last nine have been sitting judges on circuit courts. How has that fact helped or hurt the Court as an institution? What advice would you give to the President on this point? 

Toobin: I think Obama is right that it is time to end the circuit judge monopoly on the Supreme Court. Historically, the justices have not all come from the appellate court bench. Personally, I don’t think the Supreme Court should be the top step on the civil service ladder for judges – it’s a different job than other kinds of judges. And it’s no coincidence that the court that decided Brown vs. Board of Educationdidn’t have one person on it that had ever been a judge on any court before that. I think judges with legislative, executive, and business experience would be very good. 

Vitarelli: Do you think that the fact that 2010 is an election year will affect which person the President nominates for the Court? 

Toobin: I don’t think so. We operate in a 24-hour, 365-day political and news cycle. So I don’t think 2010 is much more politically incendiary than 2009 was. Democrats and Republicans fight all the time, that’s just the world we live in. And I don’t think it matters much. 

Vitarelli: What do you think the biggest issue facing the federal judiciary as an institution is now? Certainly, the issue of a stalled judicial pay raise has created some concerns, particularly in light of judges like Michael Luttig, David Levi, and Michael McConnell leaving the bench. Do you perceive any other challenges facing the judiciary as an institution right now? 

Toobin: I think it’s terrible that they’re paid so little, but I wouldn’t call it the biggest challenge of all. Most American political issues wind up in court. The issues that divide us politically will be the biggest ones that divide us legally, as well. 

Vitarelli: Shifting gears, I’m curious about your experience working for Lawrence Walsh on the Iran-Contra investigation, the topic of your book Opening Arguments. Did that deter you from being a career lawyer, or did that enhance your interest in becoming a journalist? 

Toobin: My decision to be a journalist was an affirmative decision to embrace journalism, not a negative decision to reject law practice. I loved working for Walsh. I was very privileged to do that, and I learned a lot. 

Vitarelli: How did your experience as an Assistant U.S. Attorney [in the Eastern District of New York] influence the way you cover trials, and criminal prosecutions in particular? 

Toobin: I think it’s a big influence. Trying a case is a very particular skill. You operate within a specific legal and cultural framework, and you have specifically defined goals. Journalists have a different framework and different goals. I think journalists are often frustrated when trials don’t seek to explore the facts of a situation. That’s not what they’re about. Criminal trials are about proving someone’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or failing to do that. In addition to helping me understand the specific rules of evidence and all the other kinds of rules that trials operate by, just understanding the mindset of trial lawyers is very important. 

Vitarelli: What advice would you give to young attorneys just graduating from law school now? Do you perceive the legal world as a different world from when you graduated law school? 

Toobin: Of course it is a different place. But, I think law school breeds in people a very narrow sense of what’s possible and what’s successful. You hang around with law students and you think the job with the biggest law firm at the highest starting salary is necessarily the best. Grown-up life doesn’t work that way. People get other sorts of rewards from their work—non-financial rewards. There are ways to make money, if that’s what you’re interested in, that are different and perhaps better than being a lawyer. Being open to a variety of possibilities, including not going to law school at all, is the best thing you can do. 

If you would like to conduct an interview or write a feature for the Truman Scholars Blog, please contact TSA@trumanscholars.org.

At the New York finalist dinner last month, Scholars moved around to each table, swapping places and plates, to get a chance to talk with each finalist and wish them luck. The event embodied the spirit of the late Brooks Burdette (GA ’81), who co-hosted the first finalist dinner more than a decade ago as a means to reconnect Scholars and help finalists to relax before the big day of interviews. At a dinner that wasn’t quite the same without Brooks’ presence, we was remembered with a moving toast, and the continuation of his efforts to strengthen the Truman Scholar community.

The late Brooks Burdette (GA '81)