The Post-Pandemic World: A Virtual Talk with Jacques Attali

Although we are still in the midst of it and have our day to day worries of not catching this dreadful, dangerous and rapidly spreading virus and while we are also looking toward the best means of protecting ourselves and our loved ones via social and physical distancing as well as washing hands and wearing masks, one of the nagging fears and concerns is also what will happen once this nightmare comes to an end. There will be evidently relief, joy, and celebration at first, but what will be the long-lasting effects and consequences of this pandemic. What will the post-pandemic world look like?

It was French intellectual Jacques Attali who managed to give me some answers to that ominous question. Yesterday morning (Pacific Time), I had the pleasure to attend my first webinar / Zoom talk. 

It was organized by FIAF, the French Institute of the Alliance Française and was occurring simultaneously from New York while Jacques Attali was in Paris (presumably in his living-room) at the same time. I was hoping the interview would be conducted in French, but alas it was all in English.

I had my cup of coffee in hand as I connected to the provided link from the comforts of my home. I have been to many lectures and very much enjoy them, but something seemed awkward and amiss with this virtual talk. 

Of course, I appreciated the fact that the world was intricately connected and that I was part of a talk that I would never been able to attend by any other means (both New York and Paris were simply out of reach for me), but while it created a virtual connection and get-together, I also felt oddly disconnected. But more on this later.

Jacques Attali was not the only guest, as there was also the Zambian economist and author Dambisa Moyo, and it was moderated by the host Claude Grunitzky. Yet it is Attali’s thought, insight and contribution I would like to focus on here. 

Jacques Attali is a French economist and social theorist who has worked closely as an adviser with the French government, namely with François Mitterrand and later also with Nicolas Sarkozy. He has published more than fifty books, and Foreign Policy considers him one of the top 100 global thinkers in the world.

One of the threads among his prolific and diverse writing output, which even includes fiction and theatre, has been the focus on the future, and he has correctly predicted and foreseen trends and issues, such as the Internet and YouTube and has written about surveillance and trans-humanism about four decades ago. 

In fact, he has talked about the threat of pandemics more than two decades ago. The virtual talk itself began with a look back at history. How did other pandemics play out and what was their outcome?

The Great Plague of the 14^th century was touched upon. One of the outcomes of the plague was a changing perspective of and relationship with science. Many started moving away from superstitions and religious beliefs and embraced science instead; it was science that could give them more effective protection from diseases. 

It is ironic that our current hope is that a similar outcome will take place in this so-called modern world of ours, namely a massive movement toward and (re-)acceptance of science and medicine as opposed to populist movements that are characterized by misguided information and uninformed skepticism towards scientists and scientific experts.

As a rule, pandemics tend to create disruptions in political systems. This can go in two opposite directions. On one hand, there could be a new risk for more instances of protectionism and populism. Governments would then use non-democratic means to manage their people. 

Human rights and privacy rights could be undermined via the uncontrolled and unchecked use of tracing. Although tracing would be a necessary component of dealing with and controlling the pandemic, it could, like anything really, be also misused and abused by certain malicious governments.

These would be strong governments but for bad reasons; nonetheless, other governments might take a strong stance and come out of this pandemic with a new vision. In that case, the system would not be abused but would work for the benefit of the citizens. This would lead to strong self-sufficient and self-reliant governance that follows up its vision with a clear strategy and plans as well as realistic designs for the future.

Such a government would also strengthen instead of weakening and undermining its democratic ties. Monsieur Attali gave South Korea as an example of how the government uses technology to improve upon current conditions, and he claimed that neither the United States nor China have followed suit (although there is still a chance and some hope that they could engage on a more strategic approach and a more democratic path).

Neither country, however, would come out victorious out of this pandemic; on the contrary, they would be weaker as a result. Although some pandemics would set the stage for a new global power and take-over, this would probably not happen under our current circumstances. Monsieur Attali wished that Europe would rise to fill the void, but realistically he did not think that the crumbling Union would be strong enough for such an ambitious undertaking.

Indeed, the economic fallout of the novel Coronavirus would create an economic crisis that would be worse than the Great Depression of 1929. Certain countries, however, might be better equipped and positioned than others to deal with the economic consequences. All the countries that have been investing in and mastering digital and biotechnology will come out less scathed than nations that did not or refused to do so.

One of the consequences of the economic recession would be a de-globalisation that could potentially lead to isolation and a global trade crisis. In that case, a lack of trade and more protectionism could be the unfortunate breeding ground for war. 

As countries will have lack of trade with subsequent deficits, they may seek armed conflict to gain and usurp economic resources to better their position and standing. There are, unfortunately, various historical precedents for such types of belligerent actions and behaviors.

Yet the silver lining is in what he called an ethics of altruism. This would be in governments that actively choose to invest in the “economy of life,” which entails sectors that are deemed of vital importance, especially in (but not limited to) the post-pandemic world. 

That would include the health and education sector as well as agriculture and many other domains. Since these fields are altruistic in nature, that is they intend to help and provide care, knowledge, and services to others, they would also spell a way out of this crisis.

These types of good and well-meaning governments would highlight the importance of self-reliance without delving into its dark cousin, that is debilitating and harmful protectionism. By being able to provide necessities for its population, those nations would indeed thrive and not be dependent upon others. 

Attali mentioned that many countries of the African continent are buried in debt; their best solution going forward after this global crisis would be to rely on their own skills and resources instead of depending upon aid and asking for help from others. For instance, Morocco is one of the few countries that decided to create its own masks during this crisis, hence finding a way to focus its economy on what is needed the most by its people while becoming independent from foreign shipments of simple protective wear.

One of the other impacts of the Covid-19 would be technological connections. People had already started to move out of metropolitan areas, a kind of de-urbanization, to work remotely from smaller rural cities instead. This trend was already occurring, and now it is accelerated as many more people are working remotely from their homes. There would be little need to continue living in cities as one could now connect from any place to do most of the tasks.

Yet this has also negative effects on the individual, the company as well as the nation. As each of us continue working in our respective bubble isolated from other colleagues and supervisors, it will also lead to fewer, if any personal interactions. This will have various side effects on our psyche. On one hand, there is the issue of loneliness as we may not have enough physical contact with others and might just live and work inside of our abodes.

But more importantly, it would also eliminate important connections we used to have with our co-workers and bosses. This would be the brief chat at the water fountain, the coffee machine, or even in the hallway. In fact, some of the most productive and effective business meetings occur in restaurants. 

It is the personal touch, the face to face interaction, which leads to positive outcomes in many of those interactions. What’s more, it is the physical and psychological connections with the company that create a sense and feeling of belonging.

In a similar vein, both communities and nations would miss out on important features and aspects when most of their interactions are undertaken from and limited to a confined space. We would need to reach out and connect with others, in a personal way and manner to feel part of a community and to see ourselves as an effective and contributing member to a nation.

And this brings us to my initial observation. As much as I enjoyed this virtual talk, and it was indeed most stimulating and thought-provoking as you can see in this post, something did not feel right. What was missing was the personal human touch. 

In a lecture hall, I would often go up to the speakers and shake their hand and ask them a question or make a comment. This was completely lacking, and it could be another unfortunate consequence of this pandemic that has shaken and uprooted our world.

Finally, there is another often unspoken issue or unacknowledged fear, psychologically speaking, and that is our direct confrontation with death. Death is now more visible, and it could be potentially happening to each and everyone of us. It is indiscriminate. 

Although we kept telling and comforting ourselves that it would “only” affect the elderly or those with underlying conditions, we are slowly learning and realizing that none of us is indeed immune and we are all in peril. And this lack of immunity of death is putting everything into perspective, and it makes it harder to keep our fragility and mortality at bay.

Death is not something that happens to people who live elsewhere in poverty or war-torn countries. It is not something that only happens to the sick and elderly. It is not just happening to those who drive carelessly, nor does it come down to a matter of sheer luck, such as an act of terrorism or a mass shooting. This is something that is occurring in our own communities, and to our neighbours, friends, and family members.

Once we have effectively defeated this virus and we have entered the post-pandemic phase, we may also learn to face the reality and truth of and about life, simply that life cannot exist without death. 

Knowing this, that our lives are fragile and may potentially come to an end at any moment, that time is our most precious commodity, more so than any possession or money set aside in the bank, then we may spend our time and our being more wisely with the ones that matter to us most instead of wasting it indiscriminately on all those things that do not matter, especially when push comes to shove.

Innate Differences and Individuality: A Book Review

As someone who actively pursues both philosophy and psychology, the brain occupies a special place in my heart. In fact, any issue I look at or examine, will have at least some underpinnings within or ties and connections to the brain. This ranges from questions of free will and moral responsibility to the influence of the unconscious and our perspective of ourselves and of others. Since this incredibly complex organ is the tool, decoder, processor, and communicator of our internal and external world, it becomes relevant to have at least a rudimentary understanding of processes involved within one’s skull.

Modern philosophy took a significant historical and ideological turn since Descartes: The French philosopher and mathematician aimed to break up consciousness and to separate the mind from the body. The brain itself was said to seat the soul, which, nonetheless, would be – rather miraculously - flexible and independent enough from the general constraints exercised upon the rest of the body.

However, the Buddhist perspective of unity - that the brain and mind are one and contained and embedded within each other - seems to make more intuitive sense. This interconnectedness becomes apparent when we have an emotion. The emotion is caused and / or causes a reaction within the brain, which is transmitted to other parts of the body.

Alternatively, it may be the body that sends messages to the brain, which translates it into different emotions. A feeling, positive or negative, is more interconnected than we may think. Nothing operates on its own or in complete isolation, but it is (at least in its ideal state) a synchronized unit that acts in harmony and tandem with other segments of the body. To separate and isolate one specific item, such as the mind, a disease, a psychological disorder from all the other parts of the body would be a mistaken and a rather limiting and limited approach.

By contrast, this would also put limits and constraints on our free will. Our free will cannot be spontaneous and impulsive; it cannot appear out of the blue, but it has its own sets of physical and emotional restraints and restrictions. This is a thought I have been pondering and writing about for various years, but now I have scientific proof to support my views.

This support comes through Kevin J. Mitchell’s excellent book Innate: How the Wiring of our Brain shapes who we are, which examines not only how but also to what extent genetic information manages to influence the brain and our underlying psychological characteristics. 

Current genetic technology and research indicate that most of who we are, our core identity, would most likely be set and determined by our genes, whereas environmental factors may play less of a role than we had previously thought or assumed. It is not an ideal and balanced 50 / 50 split between nature and nurture, but the scale appears to be tipped and tilted in favour of nature.

This information may come as a surprise and may feel counterintuitive; it is also going against what we have been told for decades about human psychology. To illustrate this point, we would need to take a closer look at genetics and the development of the brain.

Our essential nature is encoded and contained by our DNA, which is a program or a code of development. The DNA is not exactly a blueprint but may be more akin to a program. However, it does not do anything on its own as it needs to be read and decoded by a cell. 

One of the in-built features of the genetic program is to be responsive to changes and fluctuations in the environment. In fact, the human genome contains the history of all of one’s ancestors and their respective environments they inhabited throughout human history; yet at the same time, the system needs to be flexible enough to adapt to new emerging circumstances.

Those who had a more successful cocktail of genes vis-à-vis their respective environments had a higher chance as well as rate of survival and would then be able to propagate their genes to their offspring. In contrast, ancestors who did not survive would not be able to pass on their genes and would disappear from the line of succession. 

The theory of evolution could be interpreted as an evolving and progressive experiment, a thermostat working on the fumes of trial and error by continuously trying to adjust itself (to self beta-test) to reach an ideal Goldilocks state of survival that could and to a certain extent would change with each successive life.

For this to occur, we need both stability and variation. The DNA is overall more on the conservative and robust side of things. Although it is amenable and occasionally welcoming to fluctuations, it also needs and demands structure. 

Some of our characteristics, such as hair and eye colour are generally set and determined; others can change or be modified with influential factors and environments, for example, height and intelligence. Put differently, some of our hardware cannot be changed, but other parts may depend upon us, on our environment, our actions as well as our circumstances.

This can be best exemplified by height. Our genotype, the seed if you like, gives us a predetermined range, but the phenotype, the outcome or more appropriately outgrowth, will be influenced by various factors and choices, such as nutrition and lifestyle habits. 

If you eat well and play basketball, your chances of reaching the maximum potential of your genes is at its highest and by extension it makes heritability not a fixed but a proportional measure. In either case, it is not a matter of free for all but there is a limit written and pre-wired in your genes, which may explain why we have some basketball players who are on the shorter side, despite it all.

Our genes can be expressed as a potential that is contained and lies dormant within it. This could be a positive issue, the potential to reach even greater heights or higher intelligence, or a negative issue, such as a higher probability or a genetic predisposition for certain diseases. Although some diseases and conditions may be completely out of our control, others come down to a matter of probability or luck, while others can be evaded or avoided with sufficient care and control on our part.

Genetic defects and mutations are responsible for conditions like Down syndrome as well as dwarfism, and they can also lead to psychological conditions, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or epilepsy as well as medical conditions like diabetes and cancer. The heritability – the probability of being affected by those conditions – fluctuate: your chances of getting schizophrenia could be up to 50 %, whereas autism can have a risk factor of up to 80 %. 

Overall, neuropsychiatric disorders are highly heritable and, in fact, at a much higher rate than diabetes and heart disease. Nonetheless, people seem to feel more at ease at blaming someone for their mental health condition, while considering a person afflicted with a medical condition to be a helpless victim of circumstance.

What causes these variations within people? We inherit genes from our parents, both from our mother and father with each of them containing genes from their own line of ancestors. Yet there is another type of fluctuation that happens within the womb. During development, there is always a chance for variation.

This random variation is not brought about by the parents per se; they are de novo mutations, that is they occur spontaneously and randomly. In some cases, these variations may lead to miscarriages; in others, they could lead to conditions like Down Syndrome or autism. The latter are not caused by the parents, as neither of them would have had the condition, but they occur and develop on their own in the form of a mutation.

In the case of neurological and psychiatric conditions, such as intellectual disability, autism, epilepsy, and schizophrenia, it comes down to copy number variants (CNVs), which are deletions or duplications of segments of chromosomes. In most of these cases, it is a matter of Murphy’s Law, that anything that could go wrong will go wrong since evolution has a preferred fine-tuned manner of creating and designing a human being. Inversely, these occurring variations could potentially lead to somewhat better and improved conditions for their recipient, whether by direct or indirect means.

Mutations are more common that we may think: In fact, we all carry thousands of minor genetic variants and typically 100 – 200 major mutations. We tend to have about 70 new mutations that were not present in our parent’s genomes but most of them have no effects. In terms of de novo mutations that actually hit a gene, we have on average of 0 to 2, which then comes down to a matter of luck: If we are unlucky, they may affect brain development. Most of them - about 75 % - end up arising in the paternal germline, the father’s side, while the risk of mutations proportionally increases the older the father is at the time of conception.

Yet it is these variations straying from the given script or blueprint that partially lead to the emergence of a brand new and individual human being. I have always been fascinated by the uniqueness of each of us and how that is reflected in our DNA. There are even differences between identical twins who not only share the same sets of genes but are often brought up in the same environments. So what accounts for the (admittedly minor) differences between monozygotic twins in regards to their physical appearance and psychological characteristics?

Dr. Mitchell gives us a clear analogy: We cannot bake the same cake twice. The DNA is your recipe. You have chosen all the necessary ingredients, which are the same and of the same quantity. You bake them in the same oven. Yet the end effect is that each one is slightly different from the other. Your cake will be slightly different, no matter how hard you try to keep everything under control.

This is one of the factors that causes and gives us our individuality. They are fluctuations, if you like, individual experimentation, that try to find the best mix or cocktail for the times and environments we are living in. At the same time, some of those changes occur due to random events or are merely a by-product of noise. 

In other words, no matter how much you control the settings, it cannot lead to the same outcome. Even if you clone an individual, they will not be the same as differences will creep into the system and make them different from each other. The brain may come pre-wired, but it is not hardwired by a long shot, and essentially even the brain structures of twins are already different at birth.

Moreover, every time our DNA is copied, there is a chance for errors or misprints. Since our genome has three hundred billion letters of DNA that need to be replicated, it is understandable that there could be occasional typos or glitches within the system. 

Nonetheless, the cell has proofreading enzymes as well as DNA repair enzymes that detect and correct many and most of those errors. Yet despite having such a robust and well-designed editing system, some errors may still break through causing certain kinds of mutations within the individual.

But individuality is not solely created by our genes. It is rather the genes interacting with the environment that lead to certain types of experiences. Those experiences are filtered by and through our brain. A person who is naturally anxious or neurotic will have a different interpretation of an event than someone who scores less high on those dimensions. 

In turn, those experiences will have an affect on the brain chemistry and will affect our neuromodulators – they will cause variations in our neuro-modulatory signaling pathways - that will then control, modulate and tune our thoughts and behavior. Through experience and with time, our brain becomes refined, and we gradually become ourselves, or rather what we perceive to be our unique and different identity.

This is not always as clear cut as it may seem. As our brain is developing, it is quite malleable, and there is an infinite number of ways that development could proceed. The effects of neuroplasticity are at their strongest as the brain is in growth and development. 

This occurs when children start interacting with their environments and become more aware of themselves and their surroundings. At this point, the brain is ready to take in as much information as possible, which is why children tend to have such an optimal (and enviable) sponge-like capacity for learning, be it a new skill, an instrument, a sport, or any of the world languages.

At this stage, the brain can adjust in different manners, especially when there is any shortcoming or accident. This is also the reason why people who are born blind or become so at a young age will have other senses that will become more developed to compensate for this irreversible loss and lack of function. 

The plasticity will allow the system to adapt itself; for instance, the visual cortex then becomes responsive to auditory information making up for the gap or lack that the congenitally blind individual would experience otherwise.

Since the brain works at such heightened capacity, children are also more susceptible and prone to fear, anxiety, and other strong emotions than other age groups would be. Any emotional impact would more likely have a traumatic effect that could spill over into adult life many years later. 

In fact, any strong internal and external stressors at early stages of life could have cascading, prolonged and long-lasting effects on the circuitry and connectivity of the brain. This is another reason why childhood trauma leaves behind such deep and profound emotional scars within the afflicted person. 

As we learn from our experiences and develop habitual ways of acting and behaving in the world, such traumatic experiences would additionally shape and form an individual’s lens and interpretation of the world and could alter personality traits irrespective of genetic phenotypes or potential.

Although Dr. Mitchell gives self help and psychotherapy short shrift and claims that they are either not as influential or not as effective as they claim to be, as most of our ailments and shortcomings could be potentially traced to genetic make-up, I believe that he errs on that matter. 

Although I could understand that parental influence has less of an influence than we think, it is still, at least from a psychological point of view, more lasting and wide-ranging than he assumes. This is merely due to the fact that the developing brain of children with their budding perspective and identity is still in a fragile and vulnerable state, while any experience would have lasting effects on their future selves.

However, beginning after young adulthood, the brain loses some of its flexibility, and it becomes more set and crystallized in its functions. This is simply to protect the sense of one’s established identity. While there could be a revolution to one’s perception at any time, and age and trauma could be relieved and a blindfold could be taken off from one’s eyes at any stage of life, the brain tries to limit these types of chaotic changes, especially after a certain age, to preserve its continued and continuing sense of self. 

Consequently, we become less adept and less quick at learning new skills and tricks, but at the same we are deepening and consolidating our previous abilities and experiences. It can entail that we become more set in our ways, and we may become less flexible (and generally more traditional) in our views, politically or philosophically speaking.

My own views fall somewhere in the middle ground at this moment. In certain ways, I am quite set in my ways since I have seen and understood certain truths about life and human behaviour; in others, I always welcome and incorporate new incoming information, especially if it is backed up with solid reasons and supported by science. 

For the most part, Kevin J. Mitchell’s book falls into the latter category. I learned many details not only about the genetic process and development, but also about how they affect different parts of our psychological make-up ranging from predispositions for conditions and diseases as well as various issues related to intelligence as well as sex and gender.

There is so much information I would like to get into, but that would have to occur on a different post as this one keeps getting longer. As to the book itself, I highly recommend it and can easily accept more than 90 % of its findings and conclusions. 

Where we end up clashing is our respective fields and backgrounds. Although our brains come pre-wired and many of our traits are innate, I do not think that psychology is mostly determined by our genes. I think the software has the power to transform the hardware to a much higher degree than Dr. Mitchell gives it credit for.

For instance, he claims that psychotherapy is used more for coping with symptoms than actually curing the condition. A similar claim could easily be made about medicinal treatments. But when it comes to psychotherapy, I strongly believe in its curative and healing powers and that some but not all psychological conditions can be cured. 

Neurotics would fall into that category, and it is defeatist to think or believe that they cannot be helped or changed and that they must blindly embrace their genetic predisposition or misfortune. There is hope for them especially when equipped with the appropriate psychotherapeutic tools and, most importantly, when fitted with the right and most conducive attitude.

But in terms of evolution and progress, we would most likely agree that it is our individuality that gives us the edge in addition to a better chance for survival in the world, and that this has been the case at any point of human history. The different viewpoints and psychological characteristics that each of us brings to the genetic table is of immense value and should not be underappreciated. 

We can see how the world seems to push us in the direction of conformity, how everyone is beginning to act, look and dress the same, indistinguishable one from the other, but we need to resist this applied peer pressure; for the sake of humanity, we need to keep and preserve our individual flames aglow and, if possible, expand it and pass on the lit torch of diversity to our offspring.

The Life and Times of Thomas Jefferson: Book Review of Art of Power

Of all the American founding fathers, the one that has always caught my eye and interest is Thomas Jefferson. Not only did he pen the Declaration of Independence, but he also served as a Congressman, he was an ambassador to France, the first Secretary of State, the second Vice President, and he became the third president of the freshly minted country, following upon the foot steps of George Washington and his friend-rival John Adams.

What Thomas Jefferson has done and achieved for his country knows no limits and boundaries, and yet, the man also has some failings and shortcomings. How could he possibly oppose slavery and yet keep his own six hundred slaves? Why did he not take a more decisive and aggressive stance on the matter, especially since he himself stated that all men were created equal?

Moreover, how come he never openly disclosed but effectively downplayed and hushed the fact that he had an intimate relationship and children with his slave Sally Hemings, his wife’s half sister? This fact was corroborated through DNA evidence of 1998 causing a pent-up backlash of criticism and creating a well of doubt vis-à-vis the cherished founding father.  

These were questions that preoccupied me as well and I was hoping that Jon Meacham’s bestselling book Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power would address and perhaps even answer some of them. And it did. 

His book is not only a fascinating and enthralling read - it borders on and comes close to a historical novel - but it also gives a panorama of the life and times of the man; they were at time in opposition to each other, while at other occasions, he simply echoed and embodied the zeitgeist and was the product of his times.

There are also recurring real-life historical figures who either helped or opposed Jefferson and his plans and ideals  – and in some cases, like John Adams, were fluctuating and pending between both poles. The fact that my knowledge of American history and politics is limited was actually not an impediment in understanding the issues presented in the book; in fact, it only served to enhance and magnify my enjoyment as I was often surprised or shocked about facts and issues hitherto unknown to me.

I am wholeheartedly recommending this book, and would like to share some of my personal highlights and observations with you here. They are limited in terms of scope and depth, but I would also like to draw and underscore parallels between the foundation period and the current political climate in the United States. 

It might explain or at least shed some light on the divisions and the divisive nature of what is currently happening in the country. In fact, bitter ideological partisan rifts and rivalry among political factions are nothing new and they existed also in the heydays of American politics, which even included talk of impeaching the very first American president George Washington!

As someone who loves, appreciates and practices psychoanalysis, I am even more cognizant and aware of the important effects of the past and history upon the present experiences and worldview, and it is my belief that by understanding, acknowledging and appreciating that link and connection, one can pave a better, more confident and assured path into the future. 

Before I delve into some of the facts about Thomas Jefferson, I would like to give a brief psychoanalytic overview about tendencies that will hopefully help us understand him a little better. There are indeed two poles in his life that keep recurring at various moments and instances, and they - at least subconsciously - influence his outlook as well as actions.

On one hand, there is the strict and demanding father who instills both fear and respect. This is projected by Jefferson not only upon his own family, but also upon his political career, and it is further reflected within his fears and anxieties toward the British king and the potential threat and take-over of the mother country. 

On the other side of the spectrum, there is his love of and appreciation for his mother, which is extended to his country and his fellow citizens and adds a need to protect and take care of loved ones.

The paternal aspect comes out in the hard work and discipline that has always characterized Thomas Jefferson and that has to a large extent been adopted by the country he helped shape. Jefferson would work frantically and would always try to improve upon his skills and knowledge as he considered laziness and idleness a sin. Health permitting, he would study fifteen hours a day by reading up to 2 am; when in office, he would work over ten to thirteen hours per day.

Jefferson was afraid of and looked up to his father throughout his life. He admired his father’s physical strength but had also adopted and instilled Peter Jefferson’s strong sense of authority and responsibility as well as his democratic ideals and aspirations. 

When Jefferson was ten years old, Peter Jefferson sent him to the woods, all alone and armed with a gun and his “assignment" was to prove to his father that he could survive on his own in the wild. He ought not to come back without having a hunted animal to show for.

Peter Jefferson was a staunch Whig supporter and that means he was more inclined towards the people and the parliament as opposed to the more conservative Tories who upheld the king. These democratic beliefs and notions alongside the belief of independence from authority and authority figures were passed onto his son. 

As a result, Jefferson himself would not only wish to encourage and propel self-government, but he was also constantly paranoid about the British king potentially taking over his mother country. It was this looming threat that shaped and characterized many of his political fears and decisions.

When Jefferson was fourteen, he had his first overwhelming sense of being in charge after his father suddenly passed away at the age of 49. This made Jefferson, the eldest son, all of a sudden the man of the house, and he had to quickly copy and pattern himself after his father’s model. This stern sense of command alongside the necessity of discipline and hard work were embedded into the fabric of his personality and outlook.

The mother, on the other hand, is exemplified in his love for his native country. Incidentally, he considered it a duty to be subordinate to the mother country, while also explicitly stating and affirming that without liberty, there was no life. 

Jefferson was close to his mother throughout his life, and in fact, he lived at a close distance to her: it was only a half an hour drive from his estate Monticello, Italian for little mountain, to his mother’s abode.

His mother Jane Randolph Jefferson played an important role in his life, and her death affected him very deeply. It came at a tumultuous time: He was 33 and he was working on the Declaration of Independence. This signified a full break from his parents and of being thrown into complete independence, a struggle that was reflected in his quest for independence from British colonialism.

To Jefferson, federalism, a paternal symbol, would always be considered a looming threat to the status quo. This fear would haunt him all his life and would often put him at odds with some of his fellow founding fathers, including George Washington and John Adams. 

Jefferson feared federalism because of its ties to Britain and the royalty, namely its king. Independence for him meant breaking off the ties and chains to the former father country, and that the ex-colony would become independent and self-sufficient by walking and acting on its own and out of and for its own self-interest and benefit.

It is important to note that federalism was not an imagined threat. The British continued to be present up north in Canada and they could have invaded and attacked the United States at any point, even long after the US had attained independence. 

Moreover, in Jefferson’s native country, there were continuous factions between the two different parties regarding that matter and it so happened that even within his own party, there tended to be disagreements on that topic. 

It was Jefferson’s profound belief that to keep his country with its experiment in liberty and democracy safe, alive and thriving, this entailed keeping hereditary rights and privileges at bay; this would be, according to him, the best way to ensure and guarantee people’s democratic rights.

Nonetheless, at times and undertaken with conscious and deliberate political intent and motivation, these freedoms and rights had to be curtailed by the government and authorities themselves. That may make Thomas Jefferson appear hypocritical, but it was indeed the inherent nature of the game and the art of politics, which is a complex and delicate endeavor.

For instance, the hesitation of downright outlawing and abolishing slavery was driven by various issues and considerations. First off, at its onset, there was significant resistance from the union regarding that issue. The South, which was making steady use of the practice, was actively and ideologically opposed to the freedom and emancipation of slaves.

In order to get them onboard with his ideals, Jefferson had to make a sacrifice and reduce some of his demands. This led to slavery being allowed below the 36^th parallel (with the exception of Missouri) but it was effectively outlawed any farther north. 

This was a compromise that Jefferson had to accept since there was the danger that Southern states could break off from the rest of the union, and even worse, perhaps join the British, all of which would have put Jefferson’s achievements and strive for unity into jeopardy.   

There was also a different kind of compromise, the constitutional three-fifths clause, which meant that for purposes of more balanced electoral representation, a slave was calculated and counted as three-fifths of a person. This clause upset many federalists, and they called Jefferson, who ended up winning the election, the “Negro President” as that was purported to tilt the presidency in his favor.

Furthermore, from a more personal standpoint, Jefferson himself had a lot to lose as he had about six hundred slaves working for him at Monticello. Abolishing slavery would have significantly cut down his income, and this was an important matter because of his constant expenses. 

He may have appeared frugal in office, by not wearing the prescribed gowns and not abiding by regal formalities, such as forgoing the sword-swearing ceremony that his predecessors had embraced and selling Adams’s coaches and silver harnesses, but he had expensive tastes in his private life, whether it came down to gourmet food, drink, wine, and coffee, or paintings and decorations in his office and on his estate.

In the end, it was the sad irony of his life that he would end up dying in debt, and his beloved Monticello and his slaves (whom he had not freed with the exception of the Hemings’ line) had to be sold after his death. 

Yet he remained steadfast and true to being modest and humble since there was nothing showy or grand about his coffin or his burial, and he was laid to rest in his cherished retreat from the world on the slopes of Monticello, right next to his mother and his wife.

When it come to democratic precepts and actions, Jefferson would occasionally feel it necessary to cheat a little to get things done. This is apparent with the Louisiana purchase. As it was a significant if not surprising offer by France, he had to act fast. 

It was a time-sensitive matter; there was no time for necessary constitutional amendments, so Jefferson jumped a few democratic procedural hoops to be able to sign the treaty in time by holding a quick congressional vote instead. It would be a matter of means justifying the end, a motif that would appear at various times during his life making some of his actions and decisions questionable.

Jefferson would also make unilateral decisions without the previous approval of congress, such as ordering the military to be ready as a result of the attack on the USS Chesapeake in 1807, which was deemed an act of war and which led to an embargo aimed at harming the British.

Furthermore, Jefferson refused to testify in person at Aaron Burr’s trial, his previous Vice President who had killed ex-Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton during a duel and who was arrested for charges of treason in 1807. 

Despite being subpoenaed by the US attorney George Hay, the president did not appear in court as he did not want to set a precedent. This essentially signaled that Jefferson saw himself beyond and above the law. Burr was eventually acquitted, which went against the wishes and desires of President Jefferson.

Politically, the foundation years were strange and volatile times. The country as a unified whole had to balance and weigh various decisions and strategies to remain strong and to be perceived as powerful and to be taken seriously as a budding new nation. They would have to flex muscles without embroiling themselves in military conflict that they would not be able to sustain or win.

At the same time, more than ever before, the United States needed to find strategic allies to support their cause and ideology in the world. Jefferson’s battle against monarchy and monarchical tendencies was life-long, and he tried hard to ensure that his achievements and accomplishments would be safe and secure even long after his lifetime; as a result, he trained and put people of confidence in important political positions.

The times were also filled with strife, intrigue as well as manipulation and fake news. Jefferson, who was a strong believer in freedom of the press, had to endure calumny through politically motivated rumor, gossip, and misinformation. For instance, on the fourth of July in 1800, the Baltimore American published that he had died at Monticello. This was not true, but eerily enough he would end up dying on the same date and at the same place twenty-six years later.

Even during the early days of the American nation, there was a divided and divisive culture and environment, while newspapers would tend to publish opinions instead of facts. In addition, political conspiracies and maneuvering that were led and bolstered by political ideological factional differences between parties resulted in entrenching and further dividing the nation.

The election process was also far from ideal. For instance, there was no campaigning at the time. Moreover, during the presidential votes, until the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, the first placed would become president, while the second would automatically qualify as vice-president, regardless of their political persuasion or party. That could potentially create uncomfortable and untenable dynamics, which would lead to friction within each administration.

Jefferson’s life-long relationship with his slave Sally Hemings was a driving force in his personal life but it was also fraught with complications and contradictions. When his wife Martha died, Jefferson, who has 39 at the time, was forced to make an oath to never remarry, and the solemn pledge was incidentally witnessed by a then ten-year-old Sally Hemings. 

As he was a man of his word, Jefferson would not remarry. Yet that did not stop him from engaging in a long-term relationship with the significantly younger Sally Hemings, the half-sister of his wife and his personal slave.

When Jefferson was living in France as the American ambassador under the George Washington administration, he asked his daughter Polly with her teenage caretaker and servant Sally Hemings to cross the ocean to come and stay with him. In Paris, Jefferson must have been taken in by Sally’s beauty, and he began a long-lasting romantic relationship with her.

Yet it came with a caveat. When they were about to return to the United States, Sally, who was pregnant at the time, expressed a desire to stay in France with her brother James, who was staying at the Hôtel de Langeac. 

The issue was the following: Since France did not have or allow slavery at the time, she and her brother could both apply for their liberty and become free citizens in the country regardless of what their master thought about it.

That is when Jefferson offered a deal to sway her decision and to make her change her mind. If Sally agreed to return with him to Virginia, he would allow her children to become free at the age of twenty-one. She agreed, and Jefferson would as a matter of course keep his word and promise. 

This shows his willingness to compromise, but at the same time he had his own interests in mind, while probably being left with no other or little choice in the matter. Apart from the Hemings’ family, Jefferson would not free any other of his slaves, whereas Sally herself was declared free upon his passing.

One of the other constants in his life was his love and admiration for France, which he considered the "most agreeable country on earth” and only second to his native home. Although his ideology was largely influenced by the Scottish philosophers of the Enlightenment, there were quite a few French thinkers that must have influenced his outlook as well, such as Montesquieu Montaigne, and Voltaire.

But with France he had an important political and ideological ally. In the heydays of the American Revolution, France was strategically positioned against the British Empire. The latter tried hard not to lose their colony by even siding with slaves, promising them freedom if they enlisted in the fight against Americans, while the French used their connections with Indians to ensure that the British would not succeed.

There was also significant financial and even military support from the French to help the American colonies. For instance, Marquis de LaFayette enlisted in the war against the British. The outcome of the American revolution set the stage for the experiment in liberty, as it not only removed royalty from the throne of government but it also nullified or erased hereditary rights and privilege and put in place a new experimental system, self-government through democracy.

This made an impact on French society and politics in more ways than imagined. First off, the financial support and aid that the American union received from France brought about economic hardship for the French. Circulating ideas of democracy and individual human rights combined with widespread hunger and anger over the wealth being concentrated in the hands of the nobility managed to topple the monarchy via France’s very own revolution of 1789. This was to a large extent inspired and brought about by the Americans who had essentially paved the way with the previous financial and military aid and support provided by France.

Secondly, the emancipation and independence of colonies and the widely influential French Revolution came back to haunt France in Haiti, then known as Saint-Domingue, where its enslaved residents headed by a former slave revolted against French occupation to gain liberty and to abolish slavery. The political and economic instability in the region further weakened France’s position in the New World and was a contributing factor for Napoleon selling off the state of Louisiana to the Americans.

Interestingly, LaFayette ended up fighting in both revolutions, while Jefferson had a hand in penning both. After the storming of the Bastille, Lafayette was in charge of writing the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which was influenced and inspired by the Declaration of Independence, while he personally sought Jefferson’s help and counsel who was stationed in Paris at the time. It shows how intricately woven and interconnected the two governments and revolutions were.

Jefferson himself was also a lover of French art, food, and wine. He would have French cuisine served at his estate and during government dinners. At times and more pronouncedly during his later years of political management, he was forced to strategically side with the British, but in general, he remained quite loyal and faithful to France as well as French culture and tradition.

Finally, when we look at and talk about Jefferson or any historical figure for that matter, we must take into consideration their time and context as well. Before we state that Jefferson is a hypocrite, we must consider him also as a fallible human who lived in tumultuous times of gradual change. His ideas were generally good and inspirational, but the truth remains that he did not go far enough, nor did he enforce them sufficiently.

Jefferson often claimed that more needed to be done in regard to slavery but that this was something later generations needed to tackle for themselves; he used this statement as a means of and excuse for postponing his own involvement and action on the issue. Jefferson himself could not envision colored and white people living together in peace, and he often toyed with the idea of resettling black residents somewhere across the ocean.    

Like any politician, he had to make strategic and politically motivated decisions that were meant to appease some and not offend others. There were often compromises that needed to be made, even if they were far from ideal. 

Apart from this, he lived in different times. He wanted to protect his ideas and had to face and endure serious oppositions and challenges from others. To keep the union intact and in harmony, he often had to make decisions that went against his own wishes and desires.

Finally, he had his fair share of personal trauma and suffering. His wife died young, and he made an oath that essentially barred him from later marriage. He also lost various children to disease, something that was quite common in those days where science and medicine were not as developed or as effective as they are today. 

Then he also had his own medical conditions, such as unbearable periodical migraines that appeared during and were conditioned and propelled by times of stress and turmoil, which at times made it impossible for him to work and function in daily life.

It is my guess that Jefferson must have been an HSP, a highly sensitive person. Since these persons are wired differently, neurologically speaking, they are not only more perceptive, but also acutely sensitive and emotional and prone to worry, anxiety, and restlessness. As a result, they tend to be more empathetic, which is why they are often referred to as empaths.

Since Jefferson felt his emotions more strongly, be it pleasure or pain, he would have more empathy and consideration for others as he would intuitively know what it feels like to suffer or to feel rejected. At the same time, empaths are more susceptible to any forms of criticism and will try hard to please others to gain their approval. 

It cost him a lot of effort – through a vast amount of energy and self-discipline - to control his emotions and reactions, while it was difficult for him to accept and swallow criticism, disapproval, and animosity. In fact, HSPs prefer avoiding any types of conflict as they strive for order and harmony in their personal as well as professional lives as much as possible.

In conclusion, here we have a founding father who has shaped the country in many influential and inspiring ways. He had like many of us flaws and weaknesses, and like many of us, he has made errors in judgment, but his influence on the nation’s fabric and soul is beyond doubt and question. Jefferson was much more than a president; he actively participated in the shape, form and maintenance of his beloved country. 

Ironically, he died on the same day as John Adams, which turned out to be the fiftieth anniversary of independence. Jefferson was quite ill at the time, but in a typical combination of discipline and willpower, he kept himself alive long enough so that he could experience that moment of celebration, and this only serves to underscore his symbolic association and personal entanglement with his beloved country, the United States of America.