Kindleberger

Kindleberger (pronounced khin-dil-berg-ah)

A family name of Germanic origin.

As “Kindleberger Moment” & “Kindleberger Trap”, two related terms describing different aspects from an underlying problem in international political economy and named after economist Professor Charles P. Kindleberger (1910-2003) whose writings inspired their coining.  Professor Kindleberger’s middle name was “Poor” and while that may seem more appropriate for a monk than an economist, it didn’t appear to hamper his career.

The surname Kindleberger is of German origin, functioning as a habitational or topographic name, the construct being Kind(l)- + -berg + -er.  Kind (kid, child, young person) was from the Middle High German kint, from the Old High German kind, from the Proto-West Germanic kind, from Proto-Germanic kindą & kinþą, from the primitive Indo-European ǵenh- (to give birth); there were many local dialect variations.  Berg (mountain, hill) was from the Middle High German bërc, from the Old High German bërg, from the Proto-West Germanic berg, ultimately from the Proto-Germanic bergaz; it may be compared with the Dutch berg, the German Low German Barg, Berg & Biärg, the West Frisian berch, the English berry & barrow, the Danish bjerg and the Swedish berg.  The –er suffix (in this context) was appended to indicate inhabitant or person from a specific locality.  The “-berg” element thus in general was used in the names of those living near a specific hill or a place named with those combined linguistic roots and Kindleberger would likely have began with someone who was the (probably male) offspring of someone named “Berg”, “Berger” or such.  As a compound surname, it may in some instances have referred not to individuals living near mountainous regions but those (likely female) who were known for their roles as caretakers of children; the etymological structure can indicate a connection between familial roles and the natural landscape.  The name dates from at least the Late Medieval period (when surnames became hereditary) and records of use exist in several German-speaking regions, clusters found concentrated in areas like the Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate) region that, while not characterized by alpine peaks, does have a topography noted for rolling hills, low mountain ranges, and deeply carved river valleys.  As internal migration increased (notably within the Holy Roman Empire), like many European surnames, variations like Kindleberger and Kindelberger spread and this occurred internationally during the nineteenth & twentieth centuries; outside of Europe, the Kindleberger name is most likely to be found in the states of the north-eastern US (the largest concentrations historically in West Virginia, Ohio & Pennsylvania).  Kindleberger is a proper noun; the noun plural is Kindlebergers.

A red meteor observed by US-born astronomer Stephen James O'Meara (b 1956) in the skies above Maun, Botswana.

Asteroid 42354 Kindleberger was named after the professor.  Originally listed by the International Dark Sky Discovery Center in Fountain Hills, Arizona on 12 February, 2002 (and provisionally allocated ID 2002 CK43), it was discovered by Charles Juels (1944–2009) and Paulo Holvorcem (b 1967), both amateur astronomers.  Paulo Holvorcem (b 1967) is a mathematician based in Brasília (one of a handful of “created” capital cities), Brazil while Charles Juels (1944–2009) was a US psychiatrist practicing in Phoenix, Arizona; after retirement, he became one of the planet’s most prolific discoverers of asteroids, minor planets and such.  The naming conventions administered by the IAU (International Astronomical Union) permit those who discover minor planets to submit potential names, once the orbit officially is confirmed.  Professor Kindleberger was honoured in recognition both of his academic contributions to the discipline of economics and the role his books (especially Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises (1978) played in explaining such phenomena to a non-specialist audience.  The choice (within certain limitations) is in the hands of the discoverer(s) and other economists have had asteroids named after them.  Red-tailed asteroids are rare but do exist, 3200 Phaethon's (provisionally 1983 TB) vivid tail made of sodium vaporized from the rock by the heat of the Sun, inducing  fluoresce an orange glow.  Definitely the next red-tailed asteroid should be named after Lindsay Lohan.

The World in Depression, 1929-1939 (1973) by Charles P. Kindleberger.

A “Kindleberger Moment” is a critical point in global history when the world’s dominant power (of late typically a hegemon) ceases providing economic leadership and no other country is able or willing to assume the role.  MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Professor of Economics Charles P. Kindleberger illustrated the concept during his study of the Great Depression of the 1930s, arguing the global economy “crashed” (ie suffered a significant decline in economic activity, employment, trade etc) because (1) the economy of the previously dominant power (the UK) had been too weakened by the First World War (1914-1918) to be able to provide the necessary leadership and corrective mechanisms and (2) the rising power (the US) was both also greatly affected by the downturn and anyway uninterested in becoming entangled in international affairs.  A Kindleberger moment can be considered a “global power vacuum”, the previous leader withdrawing from maintaining and contributing to global rules, trade agreements, and international organizations with no successor available.  At such moments, competing rising new powers tend to focus only on their own interests instead of supporting global stability, meaning the international system faces heightened risks of financial collapse, trade wars, political instability and related chaos (mass irregular migration, border conflicts etc).  Of late, there has been renewed interest in the Kindleberger moment as doubts have been raised about the ability of the US to continue in the rule it has fulfilled since 1945 at a time when the PRC (People’s Republic of China, 1949-) is becoming increasing powerful and assertive but has neither the capacity nor (apparently) the inclination to be the world’s “indispensable nation” (ie “global policeman and banker”).

Professor Kindleberger in his office at MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

As an economist discussing the smooth operation of the international economy, Kindleberger didn’t attach to the concept of “hegemon” the negative connotations vested famously by the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) who had used to idea in a predictably Marxist way (of a “ruling class & ruling culture” able within a society to exert control and maintain power for its own economic benefit).  For Kindleberger, a hegemonic power was a highly desirable element in an inter-connected world economy that in the absence of such an authority would inevitably descent into conflicts that likely would spread.  A Kindleberger moment occurs when there’s hegemonic absence (or even significant deficit) in which the international system lacks a power willing and able to supply essential stabilising functions including:

(1) Maintaining an international trading system in which markets were free, open and transparent.

(2) Providing a system in which international capital flows were regulated to the extent of ensuring stability.

(3) Maintaining a stable monetary system by providing a stable, convertible reserve currency, able to be used by trading nations.

(4) Acting as a lender of last resort.

(5) Coordinating international responses to economic and other crises.

The related “Kindleberger Trap” (a term dating only from 2017) describes the structural dilemma that can arise from the world entering a “Kindleberger Moment”.  Were there always a nice symmetry in that as one power withdrew from the role, another took over on a “business as usual” basis, it would be a smoothly run world but in international relations things tend to be more messy and depending on the dynamics, things can take decades or even centuries to be resolved (for better or worse).  As a rising power acquires sufficient economic, military and geopolitical weight, it might be expected to contribute to maintaining the international order (from which, by definition, it has gained that strength) at a time when the established hegemon simultaneously is reducing its capacity or willingness to carry the burden but history suggests conflict is more likely than cooperation.  The twist in the “Kindleberger Moment” theory is that in a situation where the existing hegemon is in decline but the rising power is unwilling or unable to assume the role, a “trap” begins to open.  That trap is created by the rising power “probing” often regional weaknesses in the hegemon’s strategic architecture and the response to that often is localized tactical violence (often called “containment”), something that can exacerbate the decline of the authority of the established power while doing little to curb (and likely even encourage) the assertiveness of the rival.  Once the hegemon is so engaged, the trap has closed and the point is the “trap” is likely a process rather than a singer decisive event.  Deliberately the phrase echoed the better-known “Thucydides Trap” (the name from the Ancient Greek general & historian Thucydides (circa 460-circa 400 BC)). Describing the idea that when a rising power threatens to supplant the established one, the result is often war (pre-emptive or preventive depending on the spin chosen), either through a fear of being attacked or in an attempt to “contain the upstart”.  So, conceptually, a Kindleberger moment is the situation; the Kindleberger Trap is the recurring structural predicament that can lead to it.

Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises (1978) by Charles P. Kindleberger, fifty years on, still the standard work and now in its eighth edition (2023) and, there being no indication there'll not be more manias, panics, and crashes, a ninth edition can be expected, updated to document the latest crises.

The consensus among specialists seems to be the world is not at this point in a Kindleberger Moment because structurally the PRC is not yet able to assume the global role the US has evolved to fulfil since 1945.  These was nothing unique about the shift in 1945, just as the US replaced the UK, the UK had replaced the Netherlands, the Netherlands had replaced Spain and Spain had replaced various Italian city-states.  What however now makes the situation potentially unstable is that the PRC does not accept the existing US-led order, but is not only unable to replicate the global role but uninterested in doing so.  The PRC’s preferred model is “spheres of influence” on a grand scale administered on a “Westphalian basis” (ie non-interference in each other’s spheres).  In that, Beijing’s vision differs from spheres of influence approach during the Cold War in that the earlier model was one of conflict disguised as peaceful co-existence; the PRC’s regarding their mode; as beneficial for all.  Unlike those running the early Soviet Union (1922-1991), the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) has no interest in exporting its system of governance to other states; the lessons have been well-learned from the US attempting to “impose democracy” in places where historically it has never taken root.  The modern CCP does not wish to attempt to transform other places to clones of the PRC; what is wants is for them become good, reliable suppliers and consumers and whether they are run as democracies, theocracies or dictatorships is an “internal affair”.  What matters is peace, good order and a common system of “non-interference”.  The CCP’s collective view is not unknown in the annals of the US State Department, the diplomat and historian George Kennan (1904-2005) in one of his long (and mostly ignored) reports from Moscow in 1945 noting the US should “…remain true to its ideals but should not try to foist them on peoples with entirely different national traditions.”

Leviathan (1651) by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).  The etching used for the frontipiece of the original edition was by the French printmaker Abraham Bosse (circa 1604–1676) “with input from the author”.

The One comparison that can be made is between the notion a world hegemon is necessary for a generally stable world economy and the idea the very clever and deliciously wicked English philosopher Thomas Hobbes explored in Leviathan (1651): A strong sovereign (to whom individuals must cede certain “natural rights”) is essential for a peaceful, stable society.  Although striking, there are limitations to the extent the hegemon in Professor Kindleberger's model can be thought an international analogue of the grim vision in Leviathan; it is not a direct application of Hobbesian political theory.  Hobbes argued the fundamental problem in the “state of nature” (ie in which the earliest “societies” came to be formed) was the lack of a sufficiently powerful common authority to prevent individuals from pursuing their interests against one another.  In that model, because each person (at least theoretically) possesses roughly equal capacity to threaten others, rational individuals have an incentive to seek security by establishing a sovereign and one not there merely to coordinate but also with coercive power.  What the existence of a powerful sovereign offered was that in exchange for restrictions on individual freedom (at the most basic, not killing one’s opponents), collective security would be guaranteed.  Because all in the society would be subject to the same authority (and thus the same loss of certain freedoms) the arrangement would come to be accepted, if for no other reason than the alternative(s) being worse: “nasty, solitary, brutish and short” Hobbes’ memorable phrase.

Kindleberger's argument was developed in his book The World in Depression, 1929–1939 (1973) and concerned something analogous to what Hobbes described but at the international economic level.  His thesis was that (1) with an economy damaged by involvement in World War I and the consequent “difficulties” of the following decade, the UK was no longer able to provided the international economic leadership it had delivered before the war while (2) the US was unable or unwilling to assume the role.  With no stabilising hegemon, nations resorted to acting in short-term self interest, leading to reductions in trade, wealth and employment; Professor Kindleberger's key insight was that whatever their granular nature, in international economics these things must be thought public goods but, of course, individual countries each had incentives to have others bear the cost of maintaining them, thus the famous “Kindleberger Problem”: Who pays for the system?  That the UK was not prepared to go deeper into debt and the US preferred to focus on its own problems he held to be the major factors that made what might have been a sharp but relatively short recession into the Great Depression of the 1930s.  It was the leadership vacuum that created the conditions leading to the collapse of the international economic order.

The limitation in pursuing the analogy is of course that neither the UK in the nineteenth century nor the US since 1945 were the sovereign of the international system in the Hobbesian sense; Hobbes’ sovereign had juridical and coercive supremacy over subjects while the international hegemon does not because, although in the modern age state sovereignty is no longer the fabulous beast it was once claimed to be, individual nations remain still independent with some (though much varied) capacity to resist a hegemon.  In other words, Kindleberger's hegemon can help to provide order through preponderance in economic, political and political capabilities whereas the Hobbesian sovereign, within their territory, enjoyed absolute authority.  So the problems can be seen as similar but the solutions differ, Hobbes describing a rigid hierarchy and Kindleberger a leadership that administers anarchy by making it “managed chaos”.

US National Debt: US$40 trillion by August 2026.

All the history and economic theory is of course of interest but of immediate concern is (1) whether a Kindleberger moment is to hand (protagonist and antagonist being the US and PRC) and (2) whether the consequences of soch a moment will be economic disruption (of unknown extent or duration) or armed conflict (of unknown extent or duration).  The world is in a most unusual situation in that although the US continues of operate as hegemon, debatably it shouldn’t be able to because of its US$40 trillion debt (about 123% of GDP (gross domestic product)) and other problems.  While it’s true US debt was nudging 120% immediately after World War II (1939-1945), the US position at that time (vis-à-vis the rest of the planet) was unique and the debt trend was downwards whereas now it’s upwards.  There are those who argue things have changed and the US$40 trillion number is no longer an expression of “debt” in the conventional sense of the word but merely a way of describing the “new” mechanism of managing the US money supply.  The notion the US Treasury could at any time mint a single US$40 trillion coin, add it to the balance sheet and declare a net-debt free status has been offered as one example of why “deficits don’t matter” and while not all accept that, just about the whole world is now dependent on the US sustaining the existing system with this ever-growing debt so, in the absence of another country (or “demi-country” such as the EU (European Union (1993)), the multi-national aggregation which evolved from the EEC (European Economic Community), the Zollverein formed in 1957)) able and willing to fulfil the role of hegemon, the world economy and the US remain engaged in what some fear is a kind of economic danse macabre and there seems no way to use the numbers to predict if it's a debt level of US$50, 75, or 100 trillion that risks triggering a crisis.

Presidents Xi (left) and Trump (right).  With sufficient (1) goodwill or (2) amorality, the art of the deal can be done.  With enough of the latter, the former may one day emerge.

Of course the ultimate wild card (others might prefer “joker”) is that Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) is in the White House and while his idiosyncratic methods of governance intrigue political junkies, so marvellously unpredictable are his actions that it’s hard to map onto the dynamics a well understood concept like the Kindleberger Moment.  At heart a CEO (chief executive officer) rather than a democrat operating within constitutional norms, it’s suspected that left to his own devices, Mr Trump would sit down at the map table with comrade Xi Jinping (b 1953; General Secretary of the CCP and paramount leader of the PRC (People's Republic of China) since 2012) and divide up their respective spheres of influence.  Like Mr Trump who wants as little as possible to do with the internal affairs of America’s suppliers and customers (ie other countries), Mr Xi has no wish to waste effort or resources on “pointless squabbles” and not since a couple of horse-traders like Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) & comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953), needing nothing more, than pencil, paper and limitless cynicism divided up the Balkans into bite-sized spheres have two great powers been headed by a pair as suited to “doing the art of the deal”.  Of course, for those in places like the “renegade province of Taiwan”, there would be a cost but as at was demonstrated at the Yalta Conference (February 1945), somebody “always has to pay the price” and that may be a better trap to spring than risking the jaws of a Kindleberger Trap.

Calumny

Calumny (pronounced kal-uhm-nee)

(1) A false statement, maliciously made, designed to injure the reputation of someone or something; a malicious utterance of false charges or misrepresentation; slander; defamation.

(2) The act of uttering calumnies; defamatory words.

(3) Such a false charge or misrepresentation.

(4) As “oath of calumny”, in historic Scots law, a method for the prevention of calumnious and unnecessary suits, by which both parties at the beginning of a cause swear, either personally or through counsel, that the facts set forth by them are true.

1400–1450: From the late Middle English calumnīe (false accusation, slander; objection raised in bad faith), from the fifteenth century Old French calomnie (slander (that in modern French endures as calomnie), from the Latin calumnia (trickery, subterfuge, misrepresentation, malicious charge), the construct being calumn- (thought originally a participle of calvī (to deceive; to trick) + -ia +-y).  The source of the Latin is murky but there are etymologists who maintain the primitive Indo-European cognates include the Ancient Greek kēlein (to bewitch, cast a spell) the Gothic holon (to slander), the Old Norse hol (praise, flattery), the Old English hol (slander) & holian (to betray) and the Old High German huolen (to deceive).  It’s suspected the whole group is from the same root as call.  The English word is a doublet of challenge.  Calumny is a noun & verb, calumniousness, calumniator & calumniation are nouns, calumniate, calumniated & calumniating are verbs, calumniatory & calumnious are adjectives and calumniously is an adverb; the noun plural is calumnies.

The Latin -ia and the Ancient Greek -ία (-ía) & -εια (-eia) were used to form abstract nouns of feminine gender (countries, diseases, species etc and, occasionally, collections of stuff).  The –y suffix was from the Middle English –y & -i, from the Old English -iġ (-y, -ic), from the Proto-Germanic -īgaz (-y, -ic), from the primitive Indo-European -kos, -ikos, & -iḱos (-y, -ic).  It was cognate with the Scots -ie (-y), the West Frisian -ich (-y), the Dutch -ig (-y), the Low German -ig (-y), the German -ig (-y), the Swedish -ig (-y), the Latin -icus (-y, -ic), the Sanskrit -इक (-ika) and the Ancient Greek -ικός (-ikós); a doublet of -ic.  The –y suffix was added to (1) nouns and adjectives to form adjectives meaning “having the quality of” and (2) verbs to form adjectives meaning "inclined to".  Words such as derogation, vilification, disapprobation obloquy, traducement etc can in meaning tend towards calumny don’t of necessity carry the “legal baggage” associated with fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation and such.  The modern slang “diss” (from Jamaican English or AAVE (African American Vernacular English and probably a short form of “disrespect” rather than “disparage”) can describe statements sounding calumnious typically they’re a traducement rather than something defamatory.  The adjective calumnious (slanderous, using calumny) emerged in the late fifteenth century and was the equivalent of the Latin calumniosus.  The verb calumniate (knowingly utter false charges) was from Latin calumniatus, past participle of calumniari (falsely to accuse) in use since the 1550s.  The noun calumniation (act of calumniating) was first documented in the 1540s and was the noun of action from calumniate.  The rarely-used noun calumniator (one who falsely and knowingly accuses another of anything disgraceful or maliciously propagates false reports) was in use by the 1560s, from Latin calumniator, an agent noun from calumniari.

Calumny is of course a feature of political exchanges but lest anyone suspects the twenty-first century represents a low point in public politeness, press reports of eighteenth & nineteenth century election campaigns are available and after reviewing these, readers can decide on which side of the Atlantic discourse was most calumnious.  The word calumny is now not commonly applied to political insults (thought often well-deserved) but is a part of the legal jargon in jurisdictions in the common law tradition.  In law, the use of “calumny” rests on the notions of “false, fraudulent & malicious” and is heard most often in matters of probate (the process of verifying the legality of a will).  In the administration of probate “fraudulent calumny” describes the act of a beneficiary making false representations to the person making their will (the testator or testatrix) about another person, the outcome of which is: (1) the beneficiary making the false representations inherits to a greater extent or (2) the person the subject of those representations inherits less.  While these outcomes may be similar to instances in which “undue influence” has been exercised upon a testator or testatrix, what makes fraudulent calumny different is that some sort of falsehood must be involved.  In matters of undue influence, the motives of the influencer may not be pure or honorable but the method of persuasion is more subtle and need not involve untruths, something that makes proving undue influence notoriously challenging because the testator or testatrix has made and executed the will of their own volition.  The text-books sometimes use the legal slang of the “drip, drip, drip of a slow poison” to distinguish undue influence from the sudden, lethal dose of fraudulent calumny.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Borrowing from criminal law, the familiar maxim mens rea (from the Latin mēns + reus (literally “guilty mind” and the basis of the precept in English common law: Actus non facit reum nisi mens rea sit (the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty), what a liability for fraudulent calumny hinges on is not that a representation was false but that it was by the calumniator known to be false or they were so reckless as to not to verity the authenticity of what they said.  Probate can however be a tangled web and in the case law there have been instances where conduct clearly was calumnious yet fraudulent calumny was not found because it was proved the disinheritance of the subject of the untrue representations (for wholly unrelated reasons) anyway have happened in accordance with the wishes of the testator or testatrix.  So there can be “other contextual reasons” leading to a will being changed and courts can find their existence wholly excludes the possibility of fraudulent calumny or reduce the strength of the “fraudulent calumny argument”, the latter vaguely along the lines of the “contributory negligence” concept in tort law.  As a category of claim to challenge the validity of a will, fraudulent calumny is in most jurisdictions rare for the practical reason it is so seldom successful; that’s not to say the act is necessarily uncommon, just that it’s hard to prove.  In some cases this can be because there’s a complete lack of evidence.  A malicious falsehood might well be told to someone making out their will that has the direct and immediate effect of them disinheriting the slandered party and making the person telling the untruth the sole beneficiary but, if only two people were ever part of a conversation behind closed doors and one is dead, there likely will be no evidence the untruth was ever uttered and while there may be other grounds upon which the will might be challenged, it usually would not be possible to find fraudulent calumny.

Nor is mere “untruth” or “recklessness” enough to sustain a finding of fraudulent calumny.  Were someone to have made any number of false representations to a testator or testatrix, even if it was found their will was in some way disadvantageous to the slandered party, if there’s compelling evidence the representations had no effect of the decisions of the testator or testatrix, there can be no finding of fraudulent calumny because there exists no casual connection between one act and another.  So it’s limited and intent alone does not create grounds.  Even if it can be proven the falsehoods were intended to cause a will to be changed that “guilty mind” become irrelevant if those statements can be shown to have had no effect.  In that it differs from the application of criminal law where, if one attempts to murder someone but is so inept the target (1) suffers no harm, (2) was unaware an attempt on their life had been made, (3) and in some way benefited from the attempt and (4) the perpetrator suffered some injury in making the attempt, the offence of attempted murder has still been committed and the incompetent assassin may be subject to prosecution.  So, on the path to the fraudulent calumny finishing line there are many hurdles and what a claimant must demonstrate is:

(1) One or more false representations were made.

(2) The representation(s) were made to the testator or testatrix.

(3) The representation(s) went to character or conduct of an existing or potential beneficiary of the will.

(4) The representation(s) were made for the purpose of inducing the testator or testatrix to alter their testamentary dispositions either (4.1) to leave more to the person making the false representation(s) or (4.2) exclude or leave less to the subject of the false representation(s).

(5) The false representation(s) must have been made in the knowledge they were untrue or with recklessness as to their truth

(6) On the balance of probabilities (ie, the common law test in civil matters), it was the false representation(s) that induced the induced the testator or testatrix to change their will.

That means it hangs on intent, event, cause and effect, thus the frequency with which lawyers use the phrase “notoriously difficult to prove” when the possibility of fraudulent calumny comes up in conversation; one can prove intent and event and even that the desired effect happened but if the cause was found to be unrelated, there can, as a matter of law, be no fraudulent calumny.  Despite the obstacles, the concept is simple: “The alleged “poisoner” is receiving a greater share of the estate than the claimant believes is (1) fair and (2) in accordance with the deceased’s true wishes and his has been achieved by the poisoner “poisoning” the mind of the testator or testatrix with untruths.”  Although “challenging”, on the basis of the evidence presented, courts can find fraudulent calumny established (although in some cases the judgment has made it difficult to work out “undue influence ended” and “fraudulent calumny began”.  Typically, except for theorists,  that matters little because the outcome is the critical point.  In Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch), a woman of 86 died some three months after cutting from her will one son & grandson, leaving the remaining son the estate’s sole beneficiary.  The evidence suggested the testatrix had at the time she executed her final will enjoyed full “testamentary capacity” (ie the “being of sound mind” thing) and both understood and approved the document’s contents; the burden to produce “compelling evidence” of undue influence or of fraudulent calumny thus fell upon the claimant seeking to have the new will set-aside in favour of the original executed a decade earlier.

Damn! A Book of Calumny (1918) by Henry Louis “H.L.” Mencken (1880–1956).  Although it was not his fault, Mencken lived too long and even by the 1930s was thought (though not by other curmudgeons) “dated”.  The Mencken of 1918 was however the author at his best, Damn! A Book of Calumny a collection of short, cynical, punchy pieces representative of a certain strain of US thought in the era.

After reviewing the evidence, the judge found the new will had been induced by undue influence and set it aside, restoring the original.  In the summary, the judge listed the principles: (1) There is no presumption of undue influence for testamentary dispositions; the burden lies on the challenger; (2) the facts must be inconsistent with any hypothesis other than undue influence; (3) undue influence may arise through coercion (pressure overbearing the testator’s volition without convincing judgment) or fraud.  He added that “fraudulent calumny” exists where a person “poisons the testator’s mind” against a “natural beneficiary” by dishonest aspersions known to be false or made recklessly as to their truth.  In other words, “fraudulent calumny” may be thought a type of (or element in”) undue influence meaning the latter can be found to exist in the absence of the former but the former is a “flavour of the latter”.  In Edwards v Edwards, the just found both were operative.  Because fraudulent calumny cases are rare, the modern reiteration of principles was helpful.  The judge emphasized that while the relevant standard of proof is the civil balance of probabilities, the evidence must be compelling and the facts inconsistent with any innocent hypothesis.  Although understood as an old legal orthodoxy, the judgment in Edwards v Edwards confirmed fraudulent calumny is a “stand-alone” basis on which a will may be set aside, quite distinct from coercion.

Even in Kremlin the word proved useful.  On 5 March, 1940, comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) had signed an “open-ended death warrant” authorizing Lavrentiy Beria (1899–1953; head of the Soviet secret police 1938-1946) to “apply the supreme penalty, shooting” to Polish POWs (prisoners of war) who refused to accept Soviet authority; consequently almost 22,000 were executed with their the bodies buried in a mass grave in the forest of Katyn.  The corpses were unearthed by the German army in 1943 and Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945; Nazi Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda 1933-1945), instantly alive to the possibility of driving a wedge between the Soviets and its western Allies, arranged a forensic examination through the office of the neutral Swiss Red Cross, their unambiguous findings quickly published by the Germans.  In London, the Polish government-in-exile had long suspected the Soviets were responsible for the missing troops but found their repeated attempts to pursue the matter stonewalled and their protests suppressed.

As a cynical opportunist, comrade Stalin had few peers and not only did he deny his government’s involvement in the mass murder, he accused the “London Poles” (an annoyance to him because he was backing an alternative, “puppet communist government” under his control) of siding with the Nazis, the headline “HITLER’S POLISH COLLABORATORS!” appearing in Pravda on 19 April, 1943; within a week, Moscow had broken off diplomatic relations with the London Poles for failing “to offer a rebuff to the vile Fascist calumny.”  The British and Americans were well-aware of the truth but relations with the Kremlin were in 1943 “tense” because the so-called “second front” (the invasion of Europe from the west) had again been postponed so, not wishing further to antagonize comrade Stalin, on both sides of the Atlantic, blind eye were turned to the telescopes and diplomats inclined to “make a fuss” side-lined or posted somewhere remote.  Not until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 did the new government of Russia admit the truth about the Katyn massacre.

The Calumny of Apelles

Apelles of Kos was one of the most renowned painters in Ancient Greece during the fourth century BC.  The work (remembered as the Calumny of Apelles) that was reputedly his greatest masterpiece was lost but a vivid description by the Syrian-born Greek writer Lucian of Samosata (circa 125–circa 187) survived and a number of artists subsequently have interpreted the text and rendered versions in their own style.  Quite how reliable was Lucian’s ekphrasis (from the Ancient Greek ἔκφρασις (ékphrasis) (literally “I describe” and in modern use understood to mean “a detailed description”) can’t be known but that he was what would now be called a “social commentator” noted for his satires rather than an art critic has made some scholars of Antiquity caution the “description” might contain the odd embellishment or “slant”.  Despite that, it’s the only extant critique of the painting so that’s what artists have had to work with.  Appelles painted his Calumny as a “revenge work” after a rival wrongfully accused him of committing an act of treason against the Egyptian king.

La Calumnia de Apeles, (Calumny of Apelles, circa 1503), engraving in black on ivory laid paper by Girolamo Mocetto (circa 1470-circa 1534) after Andrea Mantegna (1431-1506).

Mocetto based his engraving of a drawing by Mantegna and versions by other artists also exist.  The theme of calumny (false accusation) obviously is a thread running through many societies (certainly in Italy during the dying days of the late Middle Ages) so the attraction to artists is not surprising.  Ever since one stone-age man (or woman) copied another’s cave-painting and claimed the work as original, artists have been accusing each-other of this and that, some claims calumniatory, some more measured.  For historians of art, the print is interesting because it’s a “work in progress”, the shading not yet added to the basilica’s dome.  Mocetto remained true to Lucian’s words but relocated the allegory’s scene to Venice’s Campo Santi Giovanni e Paolo, Andrea del Verrocchio’s (circa 1435–1488) equestrian monument to Bartolomeo Colleoni (1400–1475) standing in the background.  Attended by Ignorance and Suspicion, Midas with his donkey’s ears extends his hand to Calumny while she stands at some distance.  Calumny is the most beautiful woman of her age but is riddled with malignant passions, her fury and wrath symbolized by the blazing torch she holds in one hand, the other dragging by the hair the blameless young man she has slandered; he reaches his hand to the heavens, calling on the gods to bear witness to his innocence.  Calumny is attended to by Envy, pale and wasted away by lingering illness, while following her are Fraud & Conspiracy.  Dressed in tattered black is the mournful Repentance, tears in her eyes as in shame she glances at Truth slowly approaching.

La Calumnia de Apeles (Calumny of Apelles, circa 1497), tempera on panel by Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi (Sandro Botticelli) (circa 1445-1510).

Botticelli’s Calumny is the most famous of the genre and also was true to the spirit of Lucian’s ekphrasis, the figures personifications of vice & virtue, or the powerful & powerless (the king and victim).  From left to right, they represent (1) Truth, nude and pointing upwards to Heaven, (2) Repentance, in black (3) Perfidy (Conspiracy), in red and yellow, over the innocent half-naked (4) victim on the floor being pulled forward by the hair by (5) Calumny (Slander), in white and blue and holding a flaming torch, (6) Fraud (behind), tending to Calumny's hair, (7) Rancour (Envy), a bearded and hooded man in black, holding his hand towards (8) the king's eyes to obscure his view.  On the throne, the king has the donkey's ears of King Midas, while (9) Ignorance on his right and (10) Suspicion to his left grasp the ears as they whisper into them.  The king extends his hand towards Calumny, but his gaze is averted.  Historians say it’s at least possible Botticelli had in mind some unfortunate slandered chap (perhaps himself) but some years after he finished the work, the Florentine authorities received an anonymous letter, accusing the artist of “keeping a boy” and practicing homosexuality.  There’s no record of any prosecution being initiated and the consensus is the accusation was likely motivated by envy, vengeance or other of the vices Apelles of Kos depicted, all those years ago.  So it was a calumnious letter but not necessarily an untruth, Botticelli’s proclivities a matter of historic record.  The pattern remains current; when politicians sometimes complain a prosecution of them is “politically motivated”, that may well be true but doesn’t mean they’re not as guilty as sin of that with which they’ve been charged.

Shuttle

Shuttle (pronounced shuht-l)

(1) In weaving, a device in a loom for passing or shooting the weft thread through the shed from one side of the web to the other, usually consisting of a boat-shaped piece of wood containing a bobbin on which the weft thread is wound (ie the tool which carries the woof back and forth (shuttling) between the warp threads on a loom).

(2) In a sewing machine, the sliding container (thread-holder) that carries the lower thread through a loop of the upper thread to make a lock-stitch.

(3) In transport, a public conveyance (bus, train, ferry, car, limousine, aircraft etc) that travels back and forth at regular intervals over a particular route, especially a short route or one connecting two transportation systems; the service provided by such vehicles.

(4) In badminton, as shuttlecock, the lightweight object, built with a weighted (usually rubber-covered) semi-spherical nose attached to a conical construction (historically of feathers but now usually synthetic) and used as a ball is used in other racquet games. Shuttlecock was also once widely used as the name of the game but this is now rare.

(5) As space shuttle, vehicle designed to transport people & cargo between Earth and outer-space, designed explicitly re-use with a short turn-around between missions (with initial capital letters of the US craft).  The term shuttlecraft is the generic alternative.  “Space shuttle” most associated with the US vehicle (1981-2011).

(6) To cause (someone or something) to move back and forth by or as if by a shuttle, often in the form “shuttling”.

(7) Any device that repeatedly moves back and forth between two positions, either transporting something or transferring energy between those points.

(8) In electrical engineering, as "shuttle armature", the H-shaped armature in the that is an elongated shuttle with wires running longitudinally in grooves, used in small electrical generators or motors, having a single coil wound upon a the bobbin, the latter usually formed in soft iron.

(9) In diplomacy, as shuttle diplomacy, the practice of a diplomat from a third country shuttling between two others countries to conduct negotiations, the two protagonists declining directly to meet.

Pre 900: Shuttle was a merge from two sources. From (1) the Middle English shutel, shotel, schetel, schettell, schyttyl & scutel (bar; bolt), from the Old English sċyttel & sċutel (bar; bolt), the notion being shut +‎ -le.  Shut was from the Middle English shutten & shetten, from the Old English scyttan (to cause rapid movement, shoot a bolt, shut, bolt), from the Proto-Germanic skutjaną & skuttijaną (to bar, to bolt), from the Proto-Germanic skuttą & skuttjō (bar, bolt, shed), from the primitive Indo-European skewd & kewd- (to drive, fall upon, rush). The -le suffix was from the Middle English -elen, -len & -lien, from the Old English -lian (the frequentative verbal suffix), from the Proto-Germanic -lōną (the frequentative verbal suffix) and was cognate with the West Frisian -elje, the Dutch -elen, the German -eln, the Danish -le, the Swedish -la and the Icelandic -la.  It was used as a frequentative suffix of verbs, indicating repetition or continuousness.  From (2) the Middle English shitel (missile; a weaver's instrument), shutel, schetil, shotil, shetel, schootyll, shutyll, schytle & scytyl (missile; projectile; spear), from the Old English sċytel, sċutel (dart, arrow) (related to the Middle High German schüzzel and the Swedish skyttel), from the Proto-Germanic skutilaz, (related to the Middle High German schüzzel and the Swedish skyttel) and cognate with the Old Norse skutill (harpoon), the idea akin to both shut & shoot.  Shuttle is a noun, verb & adjective, shuttling is a noun & verb and shuttled and shuttles are verbs; the noun plural is shuttles.  The adjectival form shuttle-like is more common than the rare shuttlesque (which is listed as non-standard by the few sources to acknowledge its dubious existence).

A Lindsay Lohan advertising mural on the back of one of the airport shuttle buses run by Milan Malpensa International Airport in northern Italy.

The original sense in English is long obsolete, supplanted by the senses gained from the weaving instrument, so called since 1338 on the notion of it being “shot backwards and forwards” across the threads.  The transitive sense (move something rapidly to and fro) was documented from the 1540s, the same idea attached to the shuttle services in transport, first used in 1895 (although the intransitive sense of “go or move backward and forward like a shuttle” had been in use by at least 1843) in early versions of what would come to be known as the intra-urban RTS (rapid transit systems), the one train running back and forth on a single line between fixed destinations (often with intermediate stops).  This was picked up by ferry services in 1930, air routes in 1942, space travel in 1960 (in SF (science fiction)) and (real) spacecraft in 1969.  Shuttle in the sense it evolved in English is used in many languages but a separate development was the naming of the weaving instrument based on its resemblance to a boat (the Latin navicula, the French navette and the German Weberschiff).  The noun shuttlecock dates from the 1570s, the “shuttle” element from it being propelled backwards and forwards over a net and the “cock” an allusion to the attached anti-aerodynamic construction (originally of feathers) which resembled a male bird's plume of tail feathers.  The term shuttle diplomacy came into use in the 1970s thanks to tireless self-promotion by Dr Henry Kissinger (1923-2023; US national security advisor 1969-1975 & secretary of state 1937-1977) although the practice (of “good offices”) dates back centuries.

The Abbotsleigh class of 2020 pondering time flying faster than a weaver’s shuttle.  This was the first of the "Covid generation" so the lack of social distancing can be explained only by them all having "tested negative".

The motto of the Sydney girl’s school Abbotsleigh is tempus celerius radio fugit (Time flies faster than a weaver's shuttle), the idea behind that said to be: “As the shuttle flies a pattern is woven, with the threads being the people, buildings and events. The pattern is Abbotsleigh as it continues to grow in complexity and richness each year”.  Quite whether a weaver’s shuttle (said by some detractors to have been chosen as symbolic of the "proper" place of women being in a state of domestic servitude for the convenience of men) is appropriate for a girls’ school in the twenty-first century has been debated.  The motto came from the family crest of Marian Clarke (1853-1933), Abbotsleigh’s first headmistress (principle) and was maintained using the family’s grammatically dubious form tempus fugit radio celerity until 1924 when the correct syntax was substituted.  It’s an urban myth the mistake was permitted to stand until 1924 as a mark of respect while Ms Clarke was alive; she lived a decade odd after the change although the family’s heraldry was apparently never corrected.

The US (left) and USSR (centre) space shuttles compared with a badminton shuttlecock (right).  The shuttlecock is rendered in a larger scale than the shuttles and although the shapes are similar, travelling in "opposite directions" the purposes differ, the lines of the shuttles optimized for efficiency while the shuttlecock is an unusual example in aerodynamics of "planned inefficiency".

Counterintuitively, badminton is (in a narrow technical sense) the world’s “fastest racquet sport”.  In controlled conditions, the maximum speed achieved by a shuttlecock in flight is listed at 565 km/h (351 mph) and during sanctioned competitive tournament play, 417 km/h (259 mph) has been recorded.  A shuttlecock attains such speeds only briefly, directly after coming off the racquet and before the skirt shape creates its massive aerodynamic drag; by the time a shuttlecock arrives to be returned by the opposing player, the velocity considerably has been reduced.  Professional players however don’t seek with every serve or return-shot to generate maximum power because, as in tennis and cricket where the unexpected “slower ball” can be effective, in badminton, a well-disguised slower shuttlecock can deceive.

Three of the great landmarks of the analogue era: Space Shuttle Enterprise (OV-101, the first orbiter, used for atmospheric test flights that never flew in space) atop NASA 905 SCA (Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, one of two modified Boeing 747s used to ferry shuttles from landing sites back to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and a BA (British Airways) Concorde taking off, Paris Air Show, 1983.

The US Space Shuttle was operated by NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) between 1981-2011 as the low Earth orbital vehicle and served as the platform for its STS (Space Transportation System).  The plans, based on ideas a decade earlier explored in SF for a (mostly) reusable spacecraft were first laid down in 1969 and, despite intermittent funding and the odd threat by Congress to "defund", test flights were able to be undertaken in 1981.  Five Space Shuttles eventually were built to completion and between 1981-2011, there were over a hundred missions but the stresses imposed on the craft were considerable, meaning more maintenance was required than originally envisaged so mission turn-arounds were never as rapid as had been hoped and the extent to which components could be reused had to be revised (downwards, many reclassified as "single-use").  There was controversy too about the failures in NASA’s procedures that resulted in the two accidents in which all seven crew aboard each shuttle were killed.  The programme was retired in 2011.

Lindsay Lohan getting off the NAPA Shuttle, The Parent Trap (1998).  "NAPA" here is not an acronym, the reference is to California's Napa Valley, noted for wine tours.

Common in the early days of civil aviation, the term "to disembark" (get off) was borrowed from nautical use and was the companion to "embark" (get on).  Of late "to deplane" has entered English which seems unnecessary but the companion "to disemplane" was more absurd still; real people continue to "get on" and "get off" aircraft.  It seemed to be a trend because on railway platforms it has become not uncommon to hear "detrain" (passengers leaving the carriage), a use distinct from "derail" (railway locomotives or un-powered rolling-stock "coming off the rails").  

The Soviet Union’s space shuttle, construction of which began in 1980, unsurprisingly, was visually very similar to the US vehicle, there being only so many ways optimally to do these things.  The USSR’s effort was the Буран (Buran) (Snowstorm or Blizzard), the craft sharing the designation with the Soviet spaceplane project and its spaceships, known as "Buran-class orbiters".  Although more than a dozen frames were laid down, few were ever completed to be flight-ready and the Buran’s only flight was an un-crewed orbital mission in 1988 that although successful, proved a one-off.  The deteriorating economic and political situation in the Soviet Union (1922-1991) saw the programme stall and in 1993 it was abandoned by the new Russian government, now faced with more problems more urgently demanding the allocation of scarce resources.  The striking similarity between the profile of the US & Soviet space shuttles and a badminton shuttlecock is coincidental but not unrelated.  The space craft are designed as aerodynamic platforms because, although not of relevance in the vacuum of space, they did have to operate as aircraft while operating in Earth’s atmosphere whereas the shuttlecock is designed deliberately as an anti-aerodynamic shape.  The shuttle’s shape was dictated by the need to maximize performance whereas a shuttlecock is intentionally inefficient, the shape maximizing air-resistance (drag) so it slows in flight.

El rapto de Europa (The Rape of Europa (1628-1629)), oil on canvas by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), Prado Museum, Madrid.  It follows a 1562 work in the same vein by Tiziano Vecelli (circa 1489-1576 and known in English as Titian).

The shuttle can be weaponized.  In Greek mythology, Αράχνη (Arachne) was a Lydian girl (Lydia an ancient iron-age kingdom in western Asia Minor (the modern-day Republic of Türkiye (Turkey)) who produced weaving and embroidery so exquisite nymphs from all around would gather to watch her fingers work the threads.  Such was the virtuosity, word spread she must have been the pupil of Athena (goddess, inter alia, of spinners & embroiderers) but although that was quite an endorsement, Arachne had an artisan’s pride in her craft and refused to attribute to skill to another, even a goddess.  Angered by the story being widely believed, Arachne challenged Athena who responded by first appearing to her in the guise of an old woman, entreating the proud embroider to behave with greater modesty.  Unimpressed, Arachne spat out insults, at which point, the goddess threw off her disguise and demanded a contest.  Dramatically, Athena created a stunning tapestry showing in all their majesty the twelve Olympian gods with, in each corner, a depiction of the defeat of mortals who had dared defy the gods; an unsubtle but unambiguous threat.  Arachne took as her theme the least creditable of the love affairs of the gods: Zeus and the rape of Europa, a kind of proto #metoo moment in Antiquity.  The work was of course executed to perfection but the subject so enraged Athena she tore it to shreds and struck her rival with her own shuttle.  At this, Arachne lost heart, ran off and hanged herself.  Hell however hath no fury like a goddess angered and Athena refused to let her die, transforming her into a spider, doomed forever to spin and weave its web.

Dr Henry Kissinger, shuttling between dinner companions (left to right), Dolly Parton (b 1946), Diane von Furstenberg (b 1946), Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) and Carla Bruni (b 1967).  It was Dr Kissinger who coined the phrase: "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac", a conclusion he reached on an empirical basis. 

The term "shuttle diplomacy" describes the process in which a mediator travels repeatedly between two or more parties involved in a conflict or negotiation, in circumstances where the protagonists are unable or unwilling to meet.  Ostensibly, the purpose of shuttle diplomacy is to facilitate communication between the parties and reach a resolution of the dispute(s) but, being inherently political, it can be used for other, less laudable goals.  The practice, if not the term, has a long history, instances noted from Antiquity and the Holy Roman Empire was renowned for the (nominally) neutral diplomats who would travel back and forth between kings, princes, dukes and cardinals.  During both the Conference of Vienna (1814-1815) and the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920) the negotiations were marked by sometimes intransigent politicians sitting in rooms while a professionally disinterested notable would shuttle between them, oiling the machinery by giving and taking until either a common acquiescence was extracted or the matter was "referred to a committee".  A celebrated example of the process played out between 1939-1940 when Swedish businessman Birger Dahlerus (1891-1957) played a quixotic role as amateur diplomat, shuttling between London and Berlin in what proved a doomed attempt to avoid war.  It long seen as something noble (if misguided) and it was only years later (when the UK Foreign Office’s papers on the matter were declassified) the extent of the Swede’s conflicts of interest were revealed.

Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961 and POTUS 1969-1974, left) meets Dr Henry Kissinger (1923-2023; US national security advisor 1969-1975 and secretary of state 1937-1977, right).  Although there were in the past those who would now be thought "celebrity diplomats", Dr Kissinger was the first to be so-labeled.  He'd not have disagreed.

The term entered the language in 1973 when Dr Henry Kissinger used it to refer to his efforts to negotiate an end to the Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbors.  Kissinger shuttled between Tel Aviv, Cairo and other Middle Eastern capitals in an attempt to broker a ceasefire and improve diplomatic relations, enjoying some success, and contributing to the achievement of a bilateral peace between Egypt and Israel as well as a number of disengagement agreements (admittedly, all of them would likely anyway have happened by virtue of "military necessity").  Moreover, some historians and foreign policy scholars, while acknowledging what was achieved, have suggested it was the Kissinger’s approach to the region in the years leading up to the war that played some part in the outbreak of hostilities.

Kissinger has also been criticized on the basis that shuttle diplomacy was to him never much more than playing a game of realpolitik on a multi-dimensional chessboard rather than an attempt to imagine a regional architecture able to secure a comprehensive peace plan in the Middle East, his emphasis on obtaining something in the interest of the US (a treaty between Egypt and Israel), meaning the vital issue of Palestine and its potential to assist in a long-term settlement not just neglected but ignored.  In fairness, it must be said that lip-service apart, the Arab states took the plight of the Palestinians about as seriously, the only consensus among the being: "We don't want the Palestinians coming here".  Cynics, noting his university background (he'd been also a minor "celebrity academic" before being co-opted by various politicians) and research interests, compared the "shuttling" with the travels of emissaries in the Holy Roman Empire who would travel between the Holy See, palaces and chancelleries variously to reassure the troubled, sooth hurt feelings, cajole the diffident and, where possibe, issue threats.  This was the idea of Henry the self-promoting celebrity who could bring peace to Vietnam and Nixon to China, the political wizard who solved problems as they arose.  Certainly, the circumstances in which Kissinger was able to use shuttle diplomacy as a political narrative were both unique and something of his own creation.  He’d first undermined and then replaced William Rogers (1913–2001; US secretary of state 1969-1973) as secretary of state and even before becoming the last major figure still standing from Richard Nixon’s first term as the Watergate affair took its toll, essentially took personal control of the direction of US foreign policy.  As he put it “…one of the more cruel torments of Nixon’s Watergate purgatory was my emergence as the preeminent figure in foreign policy”.

Prize by proxy: Dr Kissinger (left) receiving the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize from Dr Thomas Byrne (1923-2014; US Ambassador to Norway 1973-1976, right), Claridge's Hotel, London, 12 December, 1973.

Some of that shuttling was in 1973 recognized when Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ Lê Đức Thọ (1911–1990; North Vietnamese communist functionary and negotiator) jointly were offered the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in what was, somewhat prematurely, called the “Paris Peace Accords”.  On the basis a state of armed conflict still existed in his country, Lê Đức Thọ declined to accept the prize while Kissinger crafted a compromise which earlier shuttler Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859; Foreign Minister of the Austrian Empire 1809-1848 & Chancellor 1821-1848) would have admired: He took the medal, donated the prize money to be used eleemosynarily and was a no-show at the prize ceremony (he cited "prior international commitments", a variant of "diplomatic toothache").  After the fall of Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) although the old name persists in popular use) in 1975, Kissinger offered to return his medal but the committee declined, by then presumably not wishing further to draw attention to them ever having made the award.

Elizabeth Holmes in black gown with (a perhaps optimistic) cleavage slit.  Until he met Elizabeth Holmes (b 1984; CEO of US biotech company Theranos 2003-2018), nothing fooled Henry.

So, opportunistic his initiatives may have been but there were after all real problems to be solved and it seems unfair to criticize Kissinger for doing what he did rather than constructing some counter-factual grand design that might have crafted a permanent, settled peace in the Middle East.  Among realists (and Kissinger was dean of the school), even then there were few who believed such a thing was anyway still possible possible (certainly since the conclusion of the Six-Day War (1967)) and Kissinger certainly achieved something and to do that it’s necessary to understand there are some problems that can never be solved and only endlessly managed.  Genuinely, some problems are insoluble, something lost on many US presidents infected more than most by the diminishing but still lingering feelings of optimism and exceptionalism that have for centuries characterized the American national character.