The Inheritance

The Inheritance

In politics, they call it “The Blame Game.” Each party blames the other for all of the woes which beset America. Who is responsible for getting us involved in the wars in Asia? Who caused the stock market to rise or crash? Who ruined our schools, debased our traditions, and cost America its vision of being “a city on a hill” unblemished, virtuous, and the leader of the free world? We ultimately lay the blame at the feet at whichever president we oppose.

Nowhere is this truer than in the political legacy of John Adams. Joseph Ellis, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, describes the political travails of Adams, America’s second president, as “the classic example of the historical truism that inherited circumstances define the parameters within which the presidential leadership takes place, that history shapes presidents, rather than vice versa.” 

To put it simply, Adams was “probably doomed to failure” because his presidency followed that of the “demigod” George Washington.

Any move Adams made was compared to Washington’s. Washington’s style of governing was majestic. Adams style, as Ellis describes it, was that of “enlightened perversity.” In short, he loved to argue. 

As a lawyer, he defended the British soldiers accused of firing on the crowd in what we call “The Boston Massacre” -- a choice which could have destroyed his law practice. As delegate to the Continental Congress, he proposed independence from England a full year before it was generally considered and argued tirelessly until it was adopted. But his revolutionary credentials did not rescue him from uncomplimentary comparisons to Washington.  His presidency was largely considered a failure. 

Adams inherited a struggling nation, still recovering from the Revolution, an undeclared war with French privateers in the Atlantic and Caribbean and a Congress at war with itself. Many presidents have inherited troubled times. Franklin Roosevelt inherited the Great Depression. Harry Truman inherited the atomic bomb. Andrew Johnson inherited Reconstruction after the Civil War and Lyndon Johnson inherited the war in Vietnam. Barack Obama inherited two wars in Asia and an age of terrorism.  

Logically, we should not judge our presidents on the events which were thrust upon them but on how each dealt with them. Our judgement is also tinged by our own political beliefs and visions. Some people feel that Roosevelt’s policies lifted the nation from depression, while others feel that he left behind a welfare nation. Johnson was both praised for proposing ground-breaking legislation on civil rights and blamed for sending thousands of young men to unnecessary deaths in an unwinnable war. 

John Adams believed that history was messy. As Ellis explains it, Adams felt that there is “a distinction between history as experienced and history as remembered.” Events experienced are more “tangled and incoherent” than can be related to and judged by those viewing them from a distance. In other words, unless you are in the middle of the fray, unless you are the president dealing with both inherited and current circumstances, you cannot accurately judge his actions.

More than two hundred years later, historians generally agree that many of Adams’s positions were correct. He was, in his own words, obnoxious and disliked, but his arguments concerning American independence and governance were visionary. Sitting in judgement is an amusing parlor game, but running the country is a deadly serious business. 

Let us pray that the actions of our current and future presidents fulfill the hope of John Adams after he moved into the newly-built White House that “None but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” His wife Abigail surely added, "Or women." 

(All quotations from Joseph Ellis’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book Founding Brothers.)

From Yuck to Yum!

Grandpa Scotto with a banner crop of tomatoes!

From Yuck to Yum

I’ve always said, “Garlic is mother’s milk to me.” Let me explain. When I was growing up, almost every dish my mother made contained garlic. All my recipes start with “Sauté garlic in olive oil.” It’s a good thing I do not bake!

My taste for garlic is rooted in science. Bee Wilson, in her book First Bite: How We Learn to Eat, notes that babies develop flavor preferences while in their mother’s womb. Mary Roach in Gulp: Adventures in the Alimentary Canal, writes “Breast milk and amniotic fluid carry the flavor of the mother’s foods, and studies consistently show that babies grow to be more accepting of flavors they’ve sampled while in the womb or breastfeeding.” Studies proved that babies whose mother’s ate garlic preferred garlic-scented milk. My Italian mother ate a lot of garlic. Yum!

So the key to having children who like what you like is to eat it before they are born. But what about those little darlings sitting at your table now turning up their noses at Brussel sprouts or stuffed peppers? Yuck! Is it too late to change their “Yuck” to “Yum”?

Taste preferences are generally set by the age of two. Before two, children are more open to new foods. After two, mouths clamp shut and mothers despair. Is there any way to get kids to try new foods?

Bee Wilson offers a strategy called “tiny tastes” developed by researcher Dr. Lucy Cooke. Parents sit down with kids, outside of meal times, and offer kids “microbites” to sample. Moms and dads taste too. Kids take part in choosing the foods to try. These tiny tastings help kids add to their accepted tastes and encourage them to open their minds and mouths to new foods. Tiny tasting becomes a fun new game.

Preschools in Finland tried this strategy. Instead of lecturing students on what foods are good for them, they provided these foods during play time. Kids played “dinner” or “restaurant” and tried the new foods. Before long, they were asking for them at home. Parents tried the new foods too and before long, the entire nation had moved toward healthier eating. 

Another suggestion for getting kids to try new foods comes from food scientist Paul Rozin: “Normally disgusting substances … that are associated with admired persons… cease to be disgusting and may become pleasant.” In other words, when an admired person likes it, children are more likely to try it. That’s why, in my day, kids who liked Popeye ate spinach. Kids ate the cereals sports stars did. Unfortunately, many of today’s celebrities tout unhealthy food (and other) choices, so it is very important for parents and grandparents to step into the hero role and lead children toward healthy eating.

So the key to turning kid’s “Yuck” to “Yum” is offering new foods in a fun way and being willing to try them yourself. Parents are “gate-keepers” for their children, letting in good choices and locking out bad. Share your adventures in eating with your children. 

About twenty years ago, my husband, in an overly-enthusiastic gardening moment, planted twenty tomato plants. Tomatoes almost marched out of the garden and banged on the back door. Growing up, I loved tomato sauce but hated tomatoes. I gamely processed tons of tomatoes into sauce and foisted dozens on friends until I finally gave in and decided that if we were going to have so many tomatoes, I had better learn to like them.

I did and I do. 

They taste great with garlic. Yum!