David Gergen dies at 83: Former advisor to US Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton; private burial planned in Massachusetts
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Gergen served in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford,
and Bill Clinton. Over the years, he worked as a speechwriter, communications director and presidential counselor, among other roles.
According to Harvard Kennedy School Dean Jeremy Weinstein, Gergen died after a prolong illness. Hannah Riley Bowles, a former co-director of the school's Center for Public Leadership praised him saying that he devoted decades of his life to serving those who sought to serve.
'David was a principled leader of unmatched character, integrity and kindness, who chose to see goodness in every person he met,' Riley Bowles said.
Former vice-president Al Gore who served during US President Bill Clinton's tenure also paid tribute, writing on X: 'Of the countless ways that David Gergen contributed to our great country, what I will remember him for most was his kindness to everyone he worked with, his sound judgment, and his devotion to doing good in the world.'
Gergen was born in North Carolina and graduated from Yale University and Harvard Law School. According to Harvard Kennedy School, he received 27 honorary degrees over the course of his career.
He also founded the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School and remained there as professor of public service emeritus until his death.
After serving in the US Navy in the 1960s, Gergen began his White House career in 1971 as a speechwriting assistant for President Nixon.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Colleagues described him as a champion of bipartisanship and collaboration throughout his career.
He also became well known as a senior political analyst for CNN. In his 2022 book, Hearts Touched with Fire: How Great Leaders are Made, Gergen wrote: 'Our greatest leaders have emerged from both good times and, more often, challenging ones. … The very finest among them make the difficult calls, that can ultimately alter the course of history.'
A private burial is scheduled for Monday at Mount Auburn Cemetery in Massachusetts. A larger memorial service at Harvard will be held in the coming weeks confirmed Mark Douglass, director of Douglass Funeral Home in Lexington, Massachusetts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
34 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump vows 100% tariff on Russia if war in Ukraine not stopped in 50 days
US President Donald Trump on Monday (IST) threatened to impose a 100 per cent tariff on Russia if Moscow's hostilities in Kyiv don't come to an end and a deal is not reached in 50 days. Trump made these remarks during a meeting with Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte at the White House, Bloomberg reported. He added, "We're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days, tariffs at about 100%". Without providing details, Trump said that the levies on Russia would come in the form of "secondary tariffs", a term which he has used in the past to describe duties imposed on nations for trading with American adversaries. Trump hardens stance on Russia Donald Trump has hardened his stance on Russia as Moscow's conflict with Kyiv entered its fourth year earlier in February. Since then, Russia has intensified its attacks on Ukraine, resulting in casualties. On July 9, Russia launched a deadly drone strike and missile attack on Ukraine's capital city, Kyiv, despite several warnings by Trump. Trump has also expressed his disappointment with Putin, as a peace deal with Ukraine has stalled. Before taking office in January 2025, the US President vowed to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. Peace talks were resumed between the two countries twice this year- first in Istanbul in mid-May and then in early June, but a third round is yet to be scheduled. Trump approves sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine Trump's hardened stance on Russia comes days after the US government agreed to resume deliveries of weapons to Ukraine after pausing them. Earlier on Monday, Trump announced that the US will be sending Patriot air defence missiles to Ukraine to defend itself. In a major policy shift, Trump noted that the deliveries of missiles are crucial for Ukraine because Russian President Vladimir Putin "talks nice but then he bombs everybody in the evening", Reuters reported. Trump to levy tariffs on Russia Trump did not clarify on the powers he would use to impose secondary tariffs; he, however, added that he was not sure if they needed the US Congress to act in order to move forward, adding that the legislation "could be very useful." His tariffs echo the punishment mentioned in a bipartisan bill in Congress that would impose 500 per cent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas. Trump hailed the announcement made Monday as he tries to push Putin to end the hostilities. He added, 'I'm disappointed in President Putin because I thought we would have had a deal two months ago, but it doesn't seem to get there." The recent shift in Trump's remarks shows how his willingness to deal with the Russian President is being tested. The recent change in his remarks also marks a departure from much of the ire he directed at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the first few months of his term.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
To Whom it May Concern: Trump's tariff letters cause a stir among world leaders
President Trump, unable to negotiate individual trade deals with 200 countries, is implementing tariffs through unusual letters to foreign leaders. These letters, styled like social media posts, threaten tariff hikes and set new negotiation thresholds. Canada, Brazil, the EU, and Mexico face increased tariffs, potentially impacting American consumers and eliciting mixed reactions from global leaders, including vows of retaliation. FILE: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt speaks as she holds up a letter from President Donald Trump to South Korea's President Lee Jae-myung during a press briefing at the White House, Monday, July 7, 2025, in Washington. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Ninety trade deals in 90 days didn't happen early in President Donald Trump 's second term. "Liberation Day" panicked the financial markets in April. And bespoke trade agreements with dozens of countries, he has said, takes too much time. "There's 200 countries,'' the president acknowledged. "You can't talk to all of them.''So Trump repackaged his plan to sltariffs on almost every nation in a series of unusual presidential letters to foreign leaders that set new thresholds not just for trade negotiations - but also for diplomatic style, tone and delivery. Most are fill-in-the-blank form letters that include leaders' names and a tariff rate. Words are capitalized using Trump's distinct social media style. A few typos and formatting issues appear generally include an opening flourish of salutation, a grievance, the threat of a big jump in tariffs, a new deadline and an escape ramp allowing that "we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter" if certain conditions are met. Rather than typical diplomatic talk of things like enduring mutual respect, Trump closes with, "Thank you for your attention to this matter!" and "Best wishes," followed by his signature of three long strokes linked by and about 14 short appears to have paid special attention to his letters to Canada, with which he's been fighting and taunting for months, and Brazil, which he singled out for 50% tariffs apparently based on a personal grudge rather than economics.A negotiation tactic The good news for the leaders of foreign countries, Trump suggested, is that if he sent you a letter, he wants to negotiate."A letter means a deal," he said during a Cabinet meeting. "We can't meet with 200 countries."But he's also managed to make his erratic trade policy baffling for American trading partners eager to negotiate a way to dodge his wrath. The president escalated a conflict he started with America's second-biggest trading partner and longstanding ally, raising the tariff -- effectively a tax - on many Canadian imports to 35% effective Aug. 1. On Saturday, Trump announced more tariffs still, this time on two of the United States' biggest trade partners: the European Union and Mexico, at 30% it's far from clear that these tariffs would benefit Americans' bottom lines. Trump's threat to boost import taxes by 50% on Brazilian goods could drive up the cost of breakfast in the United States by making staples of the American diet, such as coffee and orange juice, more has been ... spotty The response to the letters, which the White House says will also be mailed, has been Prime Minister Mark Carney's office issued a mild statement acknowledging the new Aug. 1 deadline and suggesting he would stay the course "steadfastly defend(ing) our workers and businesses."Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, meanwhile, vowed retaliatory tariffs and ordered his diplomats to return Trump's letter if it ever physically arrives at the presidential palace in Brasilia."Respect is good," Lula told TV Record. "I like to offer mine, and I like to receive it."
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Surjit Bhalla writes: World Bank's warped inequality numbers
The facts are clear and unambiguous — consumption inequality in India, as measured by the Gini index, was the lowest (most equal) in the world in 2022-23. However, the debate on this is messy and bordering on sordid. What is interesting is that all the important participants in the discussion/debate (Government of India, World Bank, and Indian media) have got it wrong in one way or another. This is not idle armchair criticism, as I document below. It all started with an essay published on the ORF website which says that, 'contrary to popular narratives, India is not merely the world's fourth-largest economy; it is also the world's fourth most equal society'. Unfortunately, this is false on both counts. India will not be the fourth-largest economy at least until March 2027; and India today is the most equal society — not fourth most equal — but only in terms of consumption. Its rank in terms of an income Gini is not known since India, to date, has not conducted an official income distribution survey. The government has endorsed these wrong 'findings' through a PIB release; the BJP also wrongfully stated that India was the fourth most equal society — it only differed in stating that we ranked fourth in terms of social equality (whatever that index might be). The endorsers completely ignored the important, and correct, result that India was most equal only in terms of consumption inequality. Critics were quick to pounce, and correctly so, on the errors of interpretation. Which led to them compounding the error. And the debate goes on. For example, Surbhi Kesar of SOAS has rightly claimed that the conclusion that India is amongst the most equal countries (as published in the GOI PIB report) was incorrect, since it compared apples with oranges or mixed consumption distributions with income distributions. 'A fair comparison would either be to compare India's income inequality with other countries' income Ginis, or compare India's consumption inequality with other countries' consumption Ginis.' This makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, after outlining the right procedure, Kesar makes the same mistake as others. She chooses to use a third source of data on distribution — not consumption, not income, but synthetic estimates of income distribution as published by the private-sector World Inequality Database (WID). WID constructs estimates by its own assumptions — a new literature has developed in leading American economic journals about the unrealistic and questionable nature of WID's synthetic estimates for the US. Inequality has always been discussed in terms of either the distribution of consumption or of income. Everyone recognises — from survey organisations to policy makers to academicians — that the measurement of distributions is flawed, imperfect, imprecise. All recognise that household surveys are the best instrument for gauging inequality in a society. Towards this end, the World Bank has laboured to construct the popular and respected Poverty Inequality Platform (PIP), which provides data for all the official consumption and income surveys in the world. PIP reports data on 167 countries, 2,258 distributions for years 1963 to 2024. These data are the only 'official' source of comparable income and consumption distributions. 'Official' because governments provide unit-level data to the World Bank for analysis by its army of researchers and analysts. There is only one exception to this rigid, and correct, World Bank requirement: China only provides summary ventile (5 percentile) distributions to the World Bank for analysis and subsequent publication. Perhaps BRICS can 'influence' China to comply with the open-data requirements of international organisations! The PIP data does not contain any information on income distribution for India or South Africa — for good reason, because no official income survey exists for either of these countries. According to PIP, the most unequal (consumption) country in the world, at least for the last 25 years, is South Africa with a Gini of 63.0. The most equal is India with a Gini of 25.5 in 2022. Notwithstanding its own findings, and the lack of any official data, the World Bank felt compelled to gratuitously note in its April 2025 Poverty and Equity Brief for India: 'India's consumption-based Gini index improved from 28.8 in 2011-12 to 25.5 in 2022-23, though inequality may be underestimated due to data limitations. In contrast, the World Inequality Database shows income inequality rising from a Gini of 52 in 2004 to 62 in 2023.' The briefs report summary data for 130 developing countries, but only for India does the World Bank quote WID synthetic results on income distribution. To add insult to statistical injury, the World Bank believes that official surveys have data limitations (yes they do), but WID synthetic distributions have no data limitations! In India, we call this kind of inference the advent of Kalyug, the 'age of darkness'. The World Bank has been a pioneer in the collection and verification of consumption and income distribution data since its creation. The PIP database is testimony to its intellectual honesty and expertise. However, the World Bank states that India has the lowest consumption inequality in the world; in the same breath (or paragraph) it states (via its endorsement of the WID synthetic results) that India has the highest income inequality. Such a paradoxical result has heretofore not been documented by any organisation in the world, let alone by a well-known and internationally renowned NGO. One of these estimates is clearly in huge error. The memory banks of the World Bank will reveal that its own research (some 25 years ago) had documented that income Ginis were, on average, six Gini points higher than consumption Ginis. Would the World Bank care to explain how it finds credible an income WID Gini of 62 along with a consumption Gini of 26? What do these 'facts' say about the World Bank's credibility? About WID's credibility? The whole world is watching, and awaiting, a meaningful response from sister organisations on this important credibility question. The writer is chairperson, Technical Expert Group for the first official Household Income Survey for India. Views are personal
