Welcome to the '52 Class Forum

James A. Baker III: Civility and the lost art of listening

Don't just listen - hear

The future of our country is threatened by its factions' inability to respect one another
By James A. Baker III

I thought I had seen it all. One Cold War and six hot ones. The great Depression of the 1930s and the great Recession of 2008. Entire neighborhoods ablaze during the social upheavals of the 1960s. Thousands of left-wing domestic bombings in the early 1970s.

But during my 88 years on this earth, I have never seen a challenge as vexing and potentially damaging as the one now posed by the incivility that poisons our society. The crassness of our national debate and the political dysfunction that accompanies it too often bring our governance to a standstill. We yell at one another about our problems rather than talk with each other about resolutions.

Sadly, the vitriol is poised to grow even harsher as partisan battle lines are drawn for filling the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court vacancy. As one liberal columnist recently wrote, all the talk about civility should not stop opponents of a right-wing court from doing everything in their power to keep the judiciary from "being packed." (His choice of words.)

No, politics ain't beanbag, and having led five campaigns for three Republican presidents, I know that firsthand, and have the bruises to show for it. But as our national anger has grown, so, too, has our distrust of our politicians, of our institutions and of one another. The only thing we seem to agree on is that the other side started the fight. We're too busy blaming one another, especially "those people" who don't look like us, act like us or talk like us.

No wonder many Americans worry that our country's best days are in the rear-view mirror. We may not be anywhere close to civil war. But the increasingly personal verbal attacks could escalate into violence.

There are several reasons for our hyper-partisan political fighting, including:

A redistricting process that pushes congressional districts to the fringes of the political spectrum. With the decline of the center, the art of compromise is being squeezed from our polity.

The simple fact that we live in a fairly evenly divided red-state, blue-state country, with the two sides seeing the world through vastly different prisms. The problems confronting a Democrat in Boston are very different than the ones facing a Texas Panhandle Republican.

Our rapidly developing social media that transforms too many Americans into angry mobs that carry smart phones rather than pitchforks.

A press that often acts as political advocates, rather than as objective reporters of facts.

We have reached a point where we continually argue about who started this mess. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. The more important question is: "How do we fix it?"

I'm not sure of the solution. You cannot just legislate against speech that some would consider angry, disruptive, or indecent because vigorous and heated debate is an integral part of America's democratic heritage. And there already are constitutional limits on certain activities that might incite violence or threaten public safety, such as shutting down roads, etc.

Nevertheless, the general tenor of our debate must change if we are to address challenges that range from our resulting political dysfunction to the ticking fiscal debt bomb that threatens our economy. Finding solutions requires serious and measured debate not incessant howls of outrage.

In Washington, it will take leadership in both parties. Republicans and Democrats must re-learn how to compromise if they want to get things done. Doing that will require a commitment to cooling incendiary rhetoric, which is coming now in ever increasing amounts and ferocity from both sides.

But all Americans must shoulder some of the responsibility. Each of us needs to look into our own hearts. The harshness of our political debate has been matched elsewhere in our national discourse. Our popular culture, for example, has become angrier, uglier, and more vulgar. The norms dictating decent behavior are eroding, and we are losing sight of the basic regard we owe our fellow human beings.

Rather than blame others for our myriad of problems, each of us should recognize that in a democracy, no one side gets to make all of the rules. Our country has survived and thrived, in large part, because we have worked together in the past on important issues. Absent the art of compromise in a democracy, chaos can ensue.

Above all, when someone makes a point, listen to it, regardless of how incorrect it may seem to you. Don't discount people just because you don't agree with them. Listening is an important part of learning about one another and from one another that sends a clear signal of respect.

It is also a critical civic virtue. And in this country, we need to do more listening and less screaming  because I fear that the things that bind us together as a people are getting lost in the noise.

James A. Baker, III was the 61st U.S. secretary of state
Article submitted by Dave Smith '52, from the Houston Chronicle July 1, 2018

Reflections: A British Baptism in a Russian Church, 1968

BY JONATHAN B. RICKERT

The following is an article that I wrote about your classmate George Hambleton and his family, and which appeared in the June 2018 issue of "The Foreign Service Journal." It relates to an event that occurred almost 50 years ago, when we both were living in what was then the Soviet Union. I was a very junior diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow at the time. The story is based on an entry in my diary and memories of the day in question. I believe it to be accurate, although it would be understandable if others who were present then had somewhat differing recollections or perspectives. In any case, I thought that the article might be of interest to George, whom I have not seen since 1968, and his family, as well possibly to classmates and friends.

George Hambleton, son of Pan-American Airways co-founder John Adams Hambleton, arrived in Moscow early in 1968 to serve as the airline's first resident director there. The initial PanAm and Aeroflot flights between New York and Moscow were to take place that July.

I met him early in his stay, and we became friendly. George and his lovely British wife, Janet, had a son, James, who had been born recently in Helsinki, where George had previously resided.George was determined that James should be baptized in the Soviet Union in a Russian church, but by Dr. Eric Staples, an Anglican priest based in Helsinki who was a good friend of both of us.Permission finally was granted after George made numerous interventions with the Russian Orthodox Church bureaucracy, which he claimed had gone all the way to the Patriarch.

George had leased a weekend cottage at Zavidovo, on the Volga River nearly 70 miles north of Moscow, in a state-owned recreation complex known popularly as "the diplomatic dacha."Though modest by Western standards, this facility provided an escape, limited sporting possibilities (e.g., tennis, skeet shooting, boating, snowmobiling) and fresh air for foreign businessmen and diplomats.

On Sept. 21, 1968, a beautifully sunny autumn day, a smallish group of the Hambletons' guests arrived at Zavidovo for the baptismal ceremony. Once assembled, we embarked in open boats powered by outboard motors for the short ride to a nearby village where the church was located. I was asked to serve as the unofficial interpreter.

The Russian priest was waiting for us at the church near the riverbank. Though cordial enough, he appeared nervous about what was about to transpire and, no doubt, about having a bunch of Western foreigners in his church.It should be recalled that in those days the U.S.S.R. was still very much a closed society, where citizens were strongly discouraged from having contacts with (non-communist) foreigners. Moreover, America's involvement in Vietnam was a major focus of Soviet criticism and propaganda efforts.

Nevertheless, the priest chatted amiably with Father Staples and explained how best to conduct the service in the space available, though he politely declined George's invitation to participate.

Just before the ceremony began, a large group of working-class Russian tourists disgorged from one of the riverboats that plied the Volga and sought to enter the church -- the village must have been a standard rest stop for such outings.The arrival of the tourists clearly upset the Russian priest, who tried to shoo them away. George, however, told him that we viewed a church as a public place, and that the tourists not only should not be barred from entering but, indeed, were welcome. That settled, the service began.

Father Staples and the Hambletons stood with baby James in an open space to one side of the church, with the Russian priest hovering in the background nearby. The Hambletons' guests formed a semicircle around them. As the service was about to begin, however, perhaps 30 or 40 of the tourists approached and formed their own semicircle facing the invited guests. They watched silently yet respectfully and with rapt attention as the brief ceremony proceeded.

Once it was over, many of them rushed forward to greet the Hambletons, wishing them health, happiness and a long life for their son. It was the most genuine, spontaneous and moving outpouring of human feeling that I encountered in my two-plus years in Russia.Ordinary people who understood not a word of the service they had observed nevertheless grasped the importance of the occasion and responded in a deeply human way.

Whenever I hear mentioned the warmth and friendliness of the Russian people, I think of what I witnessed that sunny day on the Volga and the flood of good wishes from ordinary citizens for foreigners whom they did not know.

Generals as President
Prof. Jean Smith '54, as presented at the occasion of the 65th Reunion of the Class of 1952

George Washington was the outstanding American general of the eighteenth century; Grant the most successful in the nineteenth; and Eisenhower in the twentieth.

There are several other generals who have become president. Zachary Taylor, a hero of the Mexican War and a career soldier, was elected in 1848 but died sixteen months after taking office. Andrew Jackson, the victor at the battle of New Orleans, was elected in 1828. And William Henry Harrison, "old Tippacanoe," was elected 1840, but served less than a month before dying of pneumonia contracted at his inauguration.

Other generals have run for the presidency and lost. Winfield Scott, another hero of the Mexican War, was the Whig candidate in 1852 and lost to Franklin Pierce. John C. Freemont stood as the first Republican candidate in 1856; George McClellan ran against Lincoln in 1864; and Winfield Scott Hancock lost narrowly to James Garfield in 1880.

But to look at Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower, together they served twenty-four years as president. Did they have anything in common, anything that set them apart? As generals, let me suggest they had an extraordinary ability to understand larger political issues.

Washington personified the Revolution and the American desire for independence. He was appointed general and commander in chief on June 16, 1775, and served in that capacity until December 23, 1783 - eight and a half years. He lost more battles than he won, and the victory at Yorktown was mainly attributable to the French, but Washington's ability to keep the Continental Army intact during those eight and a half years was a unique historical accomplishment.

Said differently, Washington was as great between battles as he was on the battlefield. There was scarcely a time during the war when Washington didn't have to grapple with a crisis that threatened to disband the army and abort the Revolution. He constantly had to exhort Congress and the thirteen states to remedy shortages of men, clothing, weapons, and ammunition. In that sense, Washington's job as commander in chief was as much political as it was military. His command of the army was a masterly exercise in nation building. Washington had to blend troops from different states into a functioning national force, and the constant turnover of manpower meant that training was continuous. But in defining the culture of the Continental Army, Washington molded the character of the country.

For Grant, the Civil War was about the preservation of the Union and the restoration of peace. The shortest road to that led through the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor. Like Washington, Grant represented the calm at the center of the storm of battle. Three times Grant took the surrender of a Confederate army and his terms were always generous. At Vicksburg, he paroled the southern soldiers rather than making prisoners of them. At Appomattox, Grant wrote out the terms in longhand. As at Vicksburg, the men were paroled and sent home. This time they were allowed to keep their horses for the spring plowing. Acting on his own authority as general in chief, Grant concluded with a sentence that took a massive step toward bringing the nation together. The officers and men who turned in their weapons and went home were "not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their parole and the laws in force where they reside."

With that sentence Grant pardoned the Army of Northern Virginia and undercut the vengeance that was festering to hang the Confederate leaders for treason.

It is not widely known today, but after Lincoln's assassination, President Johnson ordered the United States attorney in Norfolk to indict Lee, and Longstreet, and Joseph E. Johnston for treason. The indictments were handed down, and Lee wrote Grant asking if it was consistent with the terms of surrender. Grant immediately went to President Johnson and said Lee and Longstreet and Johnston could not be tried for treason. "When can they be tried?" Johnson asked. "Never," said Grant. Grant's denial of vengeance was crucial in bringing the Union together.

Eisenhower was similarly politically attuned. Let me mention two instances: the taking of Paris in the summer of 1944, and his refusal to drive on Berlin the following year. In the summer of '44, after German resistance in western France collapsed, Eisenhower planned to bypass Paris and pursue the German army. Out of the blue, General von Choltitz, the German commander in Paris, sent the Swedish consul-general through German and Allied lines to tell Eisenhower that he had been ordered by Hitler to destroy Paris, but had decided not to. But he could only hold out for 24, perhaps 48 hours before Hitler would relieve him and send in a commander who would destroy the city.

Eisenhower immediately changed plans, ordered General Le Clerc's French 2^nd Armored division to break off contact with the Germans in the Falaise pocket and head to Paris. Le Clerc covered the 130 miles in a little over 24 hours, von Choltitz surrendered the city to Le Clerc, and Paris was saved from destruction. Not only that, but Eisenhower did it with French troops, not American or British. And with Le Clerc went Charles de Gaulle, who was immediately established in the Élysée Palace as acting head of state, and who led that immense parade down the Champs de Élysée the next day.

Eisenhower, who had lived in Paris for a year and a half in the late 1920s, understood the significance of the city for the French, and wanted de Gaulle to reap the credit for its liberation. (I should add that FDR and the State Department were livid, but Eisenhower prevailed.)

The second incident involves Eisenhower's refusal to take Berlin in 1945. The occupation boundaries had already been drawn, Marshal Zhukov's army was on the Oder River just 30 miles from Berlin, and the Allies were just breaking out from the Rhine, some 150 miles away.

Churchill wanted the Allies to drive to Berlin. He believed it would be a useful bargaining chip with the Russians. Eisenhower was opposed. He wanted to link up with the Russians at the closest point, somewhere along the Elbe, and divide Germany in two. He thought Berlin was a prestige objective without any military significance, and would be costly to take. So instead of fighting with Churchill and the Combined Chiefs of Staff, Eisenhower wrote directly to Marshal Stalin and proposed a link up with the Russians on the Elbe. Stalin agreed, and that was that. Just as FDR had been furious that Ike installed de Gaulle in Paris, Churchill was apoplectic that Ike had written to Stalin. When you outmaneuver both FDR and Churchill on major issues, you can scarcely be considered a political amateur.

As president, Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower also shared at least one characteristic. The three had seen war at its worst, and they were determined to keep the United States at peace.

No president has had a more decisive impact on American foreign policy than George Washington, and no president has been more effective in keeping the United States out of war. In 1793, most of Europe was at war. The monarchical powers - Austria, Prussia, and Great Britain versus the French Republic. In April of that year, Washington issued a Neutrality Proclamation stating that the United States would remain neutral and impartial, and instructing American citizens to do the same. The wars of Europe were not something the United States would engage in, said the president.

Washington expanded on the idea of American neutrality in his Farewell Address. Said Washington,

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time for our country to settle and mature, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it the command of its own fortunes.

Washington's Neutrality Proclamation of 1793 ranks second only to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in its historical significance, and it set the course for American foreign policy from 1793 to our entry into World War I in 1917.

With Grant, it was a question of bringing peace to the domestic scene. Grant's "peace policy," as it was called, ended the slaughter of Native Americans on the Great Plains. This was a bit of a surprise. In the election of 1868, Grant swept the frontier states because the settlers thought he would do to the Indians what he had done to the Confederates. But Grant had great sympathy for Native Americans. He appointed a Native American to head the Bureau of Indian Affairs, replaced the corrupt agents on Indian reservations with Quaker ministers, and invited the war chiefs of the Indian tribes (Red Cloud) to the White House. Grant's peace policy brought peace to the West and paved the way for the eventual assimilation of Native Americans into American society.

I should add that Grant twice faced down congressional demands for war with Spain over Cuba, and with the Treaty of Washington of 1872, ended the friction with Great Britain stemming from the Civil War.

With Eisenhower it was much the same. We all remember the election of 1952. Ike said that if elected he would "go to Korea." Everyone assumed that he would take command and defeat the North Koreans and Chinese.

Well, Ike went to Korea, flew in an Artillery spotter plane - a little Piper Cub - along the entire battle line, and concluded the war was unwinnable. Over the objections of the commanders on the spot - Generals Mark Clark and James Van Fleet, South Korean president Syngman Rhee, and John Foster Dulles and much of the Republican Party, Eisenhower immediately made peace in Korea along the battle line, roughly the 38^th parallel. And once he did, not one American was killed in combat for the remaining eight years of his presidency.

For Eisenhower, the phrase "limited war" was a contradiction in terms. He firmly insisted the United States would not engage in armed conflict unless national survival was at stake.

Eisenhower, by the way, had no National Security Advisor. He was his own national security advisor.

As president, Eisenhower slashed defense spending, reduced American ground forces, and introduced the "New Look" to defense strategy. The United States would not fight wars beneath the nuclear threshold, and if it did go to war, it would be with massive retaliation.

Under Eisenhower, that kept the peace. Twice the joint chiefs of staff and members of the NSC recommended the use of nuclear weapons - once at Dien Bien Phu to relieve the embattled French garrison, and one during the Formosa Straits crisis - and both times Eisenhower refused.

When England, France, and Israel invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal one week before the election in 1956, Eisenhower was determined to force their withdrawal. He instructed George Humphrey, his secretary of the treasury, to mount a run on the British pound on international currency markets. As a result, the British had no alternative but to withdraw.

For twenty-four years, Washington and Grant and Eisenhower kept the peace. They knew war first hand, and were determined to avoid it. That does not mean they were unwilling to use military force. Washington used the Army to crush the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania in 1794 - and indeed, took personal command of the troops in the field, the only president ever to do so. Grant kept the Army in the South for the eight years of his presidency to enforce Reconstruction and suppress the Ku Klux Klan, and Eisenhower dispatched the 101^st Airborne division to Little Rock in 1957 to enforce the district court's order integrating Central High.

But sending men into combat was something these men wanted to avoid. To give this a contemporary note, some of you may remember the commencement address General H. Norman Schwarzkopf gave at West Point in May 1991, just after Desert Storm. Schwarzkopf warned the graduating cadets of what he called "military fairies in Washington.” Civilians who had never been in combat but who always wanted to send troops into battle. [Personal note: Norman and I were good friends. We served together for two years, 1958 and 1959, in the Sixth Infantry regiment in Berlin, and lived next door to each other in the BOQ.]

What did these men accomplish as president? It is impossible to overstate the prestige George Washington brought to the presidency, or the significance of that for the establishment of the government. As Chief Justice John Marshall - who wrote a five volume biography of Washington while he was chief justice observed, "The attention of all was directed to General Washington as the first president of the United States. He alone possessed so entirely the confidence of the people, that under his auspices a government of sufficient firmness could be established that could resist the open assaults and secret plots of its adversaries."

When Washington took the oath of office in 1789, there were only eleven states in the Union. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution, and were waiting for a Bill of Rights to be added. And the Bill of Rights, which ultimately would become the first ten amendments to the Constitution, encountered heavy resistance in Congress. (To amend the Constitution requires a 2/3's majority in both the House and Senate, and then the approval of 3/4's of the states.)

Almost as his first order of business, Washington wrote a letter to James Madison announcing his support for the Bill of Rights. Armed with Washington's letter, Madison was able to steer the Amendments through both Houses, and in September 1789 they were sent to the eleven states for ratification. The Amendments were quickly ratified, and North Carolina joined the Union in November, and Rhode Island in May 1790. Without Washington’s intervention, the Bill of Rights would not have made it through Congress, and North Carolina and Rhode Island would not have joined the Union.

As the nation’s first president, Washington confronted the need to create the executive departments and define their responsibilities. He had to put the government on a sound financial basis and establish its credit. He had to create an Army and later a Navy, and appoint all the judges to a federal judicial system that had just been created. He also had to confront a Spanish government that had closed the mouth of the Mississippi to American commerce; deal with border disputes with Great Britain in the Northwest Territory (Ohio); and pacify hostile Indians on the frontier.

I believe it is symbolic of Washington's political dexterity and to his openness to competing ideas that his first cabinet included Thomas Jefferson as secretary of state and Alexander Hamilton as secretary of the treasury. Jefferson and Hamilton symbolized the division in the country, the rift between state power and national authority. They did not like each other. But they worked effectively under Washington for his first term.

The reason the nation’s capital is in Washington is due to a deal Jefferson and Hamilton cut over a private dinner in Philadelphia in 1790. Jefferson agreed to support Hamilton’s plan for funding the public debt and the assumption by the federal government of state indebtedness acquired during the Revolution, and Hamilton in return agreed to support moving the capital from Philadelphia to the Potomac—to a ten-square-mile federal area granted by Maryland and Virginia (the Virginia portion, Alexandria, was ceded back to the state in the 1830s). Washington approved the negotiations, and the new federal district was named "Washington” in his honor.

It was at the end of Washington's first term that the issue of establishing a national bank arose - Hamilton in favor, Jefferson against. Washington sided with Hamilton, and most historians trace the formation of political parties in the United States to that dispute over the bank in 1791.

Washington was reelected unanimously in 1792. Jefferson resigned as secretary of state, and the United States under Washington's leadership repaired its relations with Great Britain. The Jay Treaty of 1794 committed the British to removing the last of their troops from the Northwest Territory, and commercial relations were improved. Relations with France suffered accordingly. It was also in his second term that Washington took to the field to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania. Washington assembled a large military force and actually put down the rebellion without firing a shot. He left office with his reputation intact. "First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen," said John Marshall, who delivered the eulogy to Washington in the House of Representatives.

As for Grant, it is an armchair pastime among historians to rank presidents, and until recently Grant was always placed near the bottom along with Harding and Buchanan. Given the fact that during his lifetime Grant was the most popular man in the country - 1.5 million people lined Broadway to watch his funeral procession - why has his reputation been so tarnished?

Basically, it was what he stood for. As president, Grant fought for Black equality. Frederick Douglass once said, "Grant was the last of the radicals.” So long as Grant was president, he kept the Army in the South to ensure that the rights of former slaves were protected. But for the next three generations that view of racial equality was rejected. We lived in a world of segregation, and Grant’s reputation suffered accordingly.

To put that in personal terms, look around. We have no Black classmates. There were none in the class of 1952 or 1953 or 1954 or 1955. For three generations Grant was swimming upstream. The histories of the Civil War and Reconstruction were written by white segregationists, and Grant’s reputation suffered accordingly.

Let me briefly mention some of Grant’s accomplishments as president, in addition to making peace on the Great Plains and protecting the rights of African Americans. It was Grant who established the first Civil Service Commission, who established the national park system with the founding of Yellowstone in 1872, and who tamped down efforts to bring religion into public schools.

But even more important were the economic accomplishments of the Grant administration. The fact is, Grant rescued the economy after the Civil War. He weaned the country from the greenback inflation lingering from printing too much money during the war, returned the nation to the gold standard, and established a sound currency that facilitated the nation’s growth for the remainder of the nineteenth century.

I should add that Grant also provided stability. After eight years of war and upheaval he steadied the nation and hastened the return to normalcy. His calming presence in the White House reassured the country during the Hayes-Tilden election dispute in 1876. The electoral vote of three states—South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana—was in doubt. Grant stepped in, devised a 15-man commission composed of five congressmen, five senators, and five Supreme Court justices to decide the issue, and there was never any question of its legitimacy.

Eisenhower’s presidency has been similarly underrated. Remember those bumper stickers in 1956. "Ben Hogan for president. If we are going to have a golfer, let’s have a good one.” Or the comment that Ike had a thirty-six hole workweek.

Eisenhower was a progressive conservative. In the United States today, that is a contradiction in terms. On fiscal matters Ike was militantly conservative. He insisted on a balanced budget and resisted deficit spending.

But he also recognized that government had a positive role to play. He firmly believed that "traditional American values” included progress and change.

When the economy turned down after the Korean War, Eisenhower launched the Interstate Highway Program. The program not only put people to work, but revolutionized the transportation system in the United States. The costs of the interstate system exceeded the total expenditures of the New Deal from 1933 to 1941. And the entire program was funded without impacting the Federal budget by simply increasing the tax on gasoline.

Eisenhower, together with Canada, constructed the St. Lawrence Seaway, a mammoth public works project opening the Great Lakes to ocean traffic.

Eisenhower expanded the Social Security system, adding 11 million self-employed persons and another five million domestics to the rolls. And he raised the minimum wage by 25%.

Eisenhower also took on Senator Joseph McCarthy, and restored the nation’s sanity after a decade of anti-Communist hysteria. He orchestrated the Army-McCarthy hearings that most of us watched in Whig-Clio, and at a crucial point during the hearings issued one of the most far-reaching executive orders ever promulgated prohibiting government employees from testifying before Congress. But he handled all of this indirectly and behind the scenes. (Fred Greenstein, The Hidden Hand President.)

Eisenhower’s appointments to the Federal judiciary led the way to racial equality in the United States. And it was not just Earl Warren and William Brennan to the Supreme Court, but the host of liberal Republican judges that Ike appointed to the 5^th Circuit in the South who were in the vanguard of the civil rights struggle.

Perhaps Eisenhower’s most notable judicial appointment was that of John Marshall Harlan II to the Supreme Court, just after the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Harlan was the grandson of the great Justice John Marshall Harlan—who had been the only dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, the infamous segregation case ("separate but equal”) in 1896. By naming Harlan to the Supreme Court, Eisenhower was sending a message to the South that was unmistakable.

Grant and Eisenhower made mistakes. In Grant’s case it involved excessive loyalty to friends, some of whom were proved corrupt. In Eisenhower’s case, it involved an excessive concern for Communist political penetration and a willingness to listen too uncritically to the CIA. The coups in Guatemala and Iran trace to that, as does the U-2 flight of Francis Gary Powers on the eve of the Paris Summit in 1959.

Finally, let me say that all three, Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower, had an almost perfect command of the English language, and Grant and Eisenhower proved to be great writers. Grant’s memoirs, written as he was dying of cancer, are generally considered the finest military memoirs ever written, and Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe, which he wrote without editorial help, is easily the best memoir to emerge from World War II.

Finally, let me say this has been a great treat for me to speak to classmates after sixty years. I think for all of us Princeton was an experience we will never forget. I learned that the week has seven days. Shortly after we arrived in 1950, I decided that of the 750 people in our class, 749 were smarter than I was. The only way I was going to survive was to work harder than they. So I started working on Saturdays and Sundays. It’s a habit I have continued. I get up every morning, seven days a week, at 5:30, get to my desk at 7:30, and work until 12:30. Hopefully, that will allow me to finish my next book, which is on the Liberation of Paris in 1944.

James Baker: The Need for Civility in an Uncivil World

CONSIDERING A CHANGE: RETIREES FACE TOUGH QUESTIONS

PATRICIA and ROBERT FOULKE [Special to The Post-Star, Jul 19, 2015]
Editor’s note: Patricia and Robert Foulke visited 131 retirement communities and gathered information from each as a way to help make their decision when the time comes. The following is the first part of a series looking at retirement communities. [Additional parts will be posted in the coming weeks, and saved on the Class Forum page for future reference.]

As people enter the later stages of their lives, that choice lurking below the surface of daily living becomes more prominent.
Let’s begin by saying that we would rather stay right where we are and age in place. We’ve heard the old saw from friends and acquaintances: "They’re going to have to carry me out of here feet first.”
But staying put may not be the best for us or others. This article, and those that follow, are designed to help all of us approach that choice with knowledge and clear, hard questions.
We first encountered the choice several decades ago with a favorite aunt and uncle. They told us they were going to leave their lovely home in the woods surrounding the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, North Carolina, and move into a retirement community. As we flew down to help them, we wondered why they were moving from a place they loved into an unknown.
Now we know why. As sensible people, they were thinking ahead to a time when their healthy bodies might begin to decline. They realized that someday they might not be able to care for themselves or each other.
Yet the choice to move is not an easy one for most people to make. We have strong ties to our communities, our neighbors and friends, organizations, churches, doctors, and the houses where we have raised families and carved out much of the value in our lives. So why not age in place as many of our parents did?
Leading Age is the national professional organization representing not-for-profit retirement communities. Continuing Care at Home has local organizations in 22 states, and more than 70 percent of its member retirement communities are involved in outreach to residents of their surrounding towns or cities. 
We belong to Aging in Place Glens Falls, a cooperative network of residents who help each other with tasks they can no longer do independently, from driving to home repair. Founded in 2008 by a group of individuals who wanted to remain in their homes as long as possible, it now has about 80 members from Glens Falls and surrounding communities.
Hanging on to a comfortable place and familiar friends or jumping into a new community is a bit like deciding on your first dive off a high board. Some compare it to going to camp or choosing a college, but both are temporary moves. This one is intended to be permanent, demanding knowledge and careful analysis.
Since 1995, we have visited 130 retirement communities, mostly in Atlantic seaboard states. When friends began asking us what we had found out, the study for our own use evolved into a writing project to share with others.
To get a clearer focus, we concentrated on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) — those that offer independent living, assisted living, memory care and skilled nursing.
Without knowing it, we had embarked on a journey of discovery.
We begin this series with the toughest questions: Why move, where, and when? Two following articles will explore the structure, ownership, financial stability, and costs associated with retirement communities from a consumer’s point of view. A fourth will survey available retirement communities to consider in or near our region.

An issue of health Potential health issues are often the first concern as seniors consider a move. There is no crystal ball to tell us when we might have a mental or physical failing. Forgetting where the keys are or why we walked into a room or the name of an acquaintance are part of aging. But if we are no longer able to take the right medications from their bottles or can’t remember what we did yesterday, we may need help. 
Parts of our bodies may not function as they used to. Walking may be slower and unsteady. We no longer want to climb ladders up to the roof to clear gutters. We may have more trouble and less interest in completing other seasonal chores around the house and yard. We may notice an increasing lack of endurance and a longer process of regaining muscle strength after a lapse in exercise. The plan and location of our house may no longer be suitable as we age. With kids gone, it may be larger than we need. Living in a house with stairs may become a challenge. In the North Country, many of us live in areas without the public transportation needed when we can no longer drive. 
Subtle psychological shifts also creep up on many of us as we age. We look forward to simplifying daily living and slowing down a bit. 
With obligations removed, we begin to own and value days more, especially because we know there are more behind us than ahead. Instead of making a list of chores to do, we’d rather begin each day by planning what we want to do. 
As we visited retirement communities, residents were eager to tell us why they value their new lives. "I was tired of living alone. I had a big house and was tired of keeping it up,” said Aileen at The Glen at Hiland Meadows in Queensbury. Life in a retirement community is enriched with cultural, social and wellness activities that are all in one place rather than scattered throughout the town. Residents have time to read those books that stacked up for years. They can pursue a lifelong interest in woodworking or painting, gardening or weaving. The array of activities in wellness programs brings many benefits to residents. Exercise rooms and pools are close at hand and easy to use. "I take my electric cart and zip along to water aerobics five days a week,” said Betta at Meadow Lakes in Hightstown, New Jersey. Lectures, concerts, films, and continuing education classes on campus stimulate thought and conversation. Community projects generated by residents bring them together and create a sense of achievement. All of these benefits promote longevity. 
There’s new freedom and mobility reminiscent of college years. It pleases those who look forward to retirement as a time for travel, as well as snowbirds and those who own vacation homes. With no house and yard to take care of or worry about, they can simply turn the key and take off. Residents in retirement communities welcome new arrivals, and social calendars can be filled with communal events and parties. Friendships develop as those with similar interests pursue them. We met a businessman who had never painted in his life until he took up brushes in a class on site. Now the walls of his new home are filled with scenes along the Maine coast.

The Kendal Corporation, an early pioneer and continuing leader in the development of continuing care retirement communities, stresses the value of change. Many residents feel the warmth of a second family living all around them. Recently we met Richard Barry, who wrote "Experiencing Woodland Pond” after moving several years ago to the Woodland Pond community in New Paltz. "I fell in love with its natural setting, its amenities, its programs, and more importantly, its residents and professional staff,” said Barry.

Older people seldom welcome the prospect of moving away from familiar scenes and changing comfortable habits. But for some, the adjustments end up being easy. Others waffle. Delaying too long can endanger a person’s ability to make the major choices in her own life. An accident or stroke can put the choice in the hands of those who may not know the options or how we would have judged them. We have seen children make mistakes when a move for a mother or father must be made quickly. Many parents see taking responsibility for that choice in advance as a gift to their children.

FINDING A PLACE

If we have decided moving into a retirement community is wiser than staying put, we need to move on to other choices. Many people like to remain in or near their local community with familiar friends, continuing activities, and a stable connection to their church and doctors. Typically, more than half of the residents in retirement communities come from within 30 or 40 miles.  Those living around the periphery of major cities like Philadelphia have an abundance of choices. They have the dual advantage of keeping one foot in their old lives while putting the other in a new, fresh community. Locally, residents of a community like the Glen at Hiland Meadows in Queensbury, also have those advantages.

Others like to return to the place they remember as home when they were children. But this can be a romantic notion built on memories half a century old, and people who act on it court disappointment. When we were growing up in Minneapolis, our parents would drive us out to the edge of the city on Sunday afternoons to buy fresh vegetables from active farms. Now the friendly city with a small-town culture has exploded into a major metropolis, gobbling up all the farms. Driving is a nightmare. Some of our old friends in Minneapolis have moved away and built lives elsewhere, as we have. Others have become snowbirds to escape the city�s winters. Regrettably, many have died. Trying to re-create a former life after many decades of change is a bit like chasing rainbows.

Adventurous retirees may choose to move to a new place with lakes, seashore, mountains or a much warmer climate. If you are a sailor, paddler, hiker or skier, moving near the sport you love has great appeal � but remember that as you age your ability to participate can wane or disappear. Others choose historic towns like Williamsburg, Virginia; or college towns for their wealth of performing arts, museums and opportunities for continuing education. At some colleges, you can audit courses, and others will bring lecturers to your community. It�s an easy way to keep your brain alive. "It�s warm and friendly here, and you can listen to lectures from University of North Carolina professors,� said Ann at Carol Woods in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Many people move to live near their children, both for support in making decisions and frequent contact. But unless the children have work rooted in the community, they may end up moving themselves, across the country or the world. There are other questions to ask yourself before moving to a retirement community near children: How much free time do your children have? Are you expecting more frequent contact than they can manage? How would you relate to the surrounding town or city?

It is prudent, too, to consider the cost of living in any new location. Are taxes and inheritance laws more or less favorable? If most of the people in the retirement community came from the surrounding town or city, with long-term relationships intact, will you feel out of place? Are you willing to make new friends based on common interests, hobbies, or sports?

SIMPLE PRINCIPLE

Residents of retirement communities unanimously support one simple principle: Move when you want to, not when you have to. Bill Thomas, a gerontologist at the Eden Alternative Movement, put it more graphically: "Dig the well before you’re thirsty.”
Planning ahead for the possibility of a move puts the choice in your hands. Your choice of living quarters in a retirement community is seldom available instantly. Most people put their names on one or more waiting lists for various apartments or cottages. Waiting lists create no obligation and the fee is refundable. Many give you some rights on campus that help you to evaluate your choice. You can get to know residents by having dinner and attending events there.
Move while you are healthy enough to downsize and make the transition. Residents have warned us that making a change requires an adjustment but also creates an opportunity for growth and revitalization. Don’t wait until you begin to have serious health issues. Some communities require you to qualify medically at the time of your actual move. Assess your health and situation realistically.
When you visit, don’t just look at independent living, which usually takes up most of the living space at continuing care retirement communities. Ask to walk through higher levels of care, including assisted living, memory care and skilled nursing.

HOW ARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES ORGANIZED?

We had thought we could move to a retirement community by just picking one we liked — until we began visiting them. Then we realized we did not know enough to make one of the most important decisions of our lives.  So we set about learning. When we decided to share what we had learned, what had started as a personal project seemed overwhelming. We staked out the territory people living in Atlantic seaboard states might explore when looking for a retirement community.  
Like birds on the flyway above, many of us tend to move with the seasons through territory stretching from Maine to Florida. Since 1995, we have visited 130 retirement communities within that north-south swath, focusing on those that provide a continuum of care on a single campus.
What is a CCRC?
A Continuing Care Retirement Community is a complex organization. It provides apartments and cottages for independent living, usually serving two-thirds to three-quarters of the residents. Add to that assisted living apartments for those who need help with daily activities, and more apartments for those who need memory or skilled nursing care.  
Then consider the facilities — a number of restaurants, clinics and staff for varied levels of health care, meeting rooms, auditoriums, exercise rooms, perhaps a pool, craft shops, gardens and walking trails. Making all this work requires management and staff that usually outnumbers the residents.  
These communities allow residents to move from one level of care to another without upheaval. Spouses who do not require extra care continue to live in a couple’s original apartment or cottage, close by.  
CCRC "Look-Alikes”
Under New York’s health care law, CCRC’s must conform to all provisions of Article 46 if they offer life care contracts, or 46A if they offer fee-for-service contracts. Some retirement communities that have all levels of care — independent living, assisted living, memory care and skilled nursing — but do not meet one or more provisions of the applicable law are called "look-alikes.”As a result, there are only 13 registered CCRCs in New York state, while they are more abundant in neighboring Massachusetts with 30 and Pennsylvania with 89.  
Residents of retirement communities unanimously support one simple principle: Move when you want to, not when you have to.  Bill Thomas, a gerontologist at the Eden Alternative Movement, put it more graphically: "Dig the well before you’re thirsty.”  
Planning ahead for the possibility of a move puts the choice in your hands. Your choice of living quarters in a retirement community is seldom available instantly.  Most people put their names on one or more waiting lists for various apartments or cottages. Waiting lists create no obligation and the fee is refundable. Many give you some rights on campus that help you to evaluate your choice. You can get to know residents by having dinner and attending events there.  
Move while you are healthy enough to downsize and make the transition.  Residents have warned us that making a change requires an adjustment but also creates an opportunity for growth and revitalization.  Don’t wait until you begin to have serious health issues. Some communities require you to qualify medically at the time of your actual move. Assess your health and situation realistically.
When you visit, don’t just look at independent living, which usually takes up most of the living space at continuing care retirement communities. Ask to walk through higher levels of care, including assisted living, memory care and skilled nursing.

Other factors

Chasing the sun: After the rigors of last winter, many local residents vowed to spend their retirement years in winter sun. That works — there are many good retirement communities available — but has complications without a house or cottage here to fly back to. Southern summers are hot and humid. And many snowbirds end up returning north if they have strong ties to family and friends in this region.

Location, location, location: The surrounding topography matters for many of us. We love the lake and mountains visible from our windows. Others find the shore and ocean beaches appealing. Some people favor a rural setting or a college town for access to culture. Others insist on living in the outskirts of a city or near its center to bring shopping and entertainment within walking distance.

Architecture and grounds: Consider your preferences and needs. Do you want an earth-hugging cottage or a high rise with a view? Are the apartments in a central, connected complex or scattered in separate buildings? Some people want space and woods with ponds, while others want to be close to common rooms and restaurants.

Too small, too big: The number of residents in independent living shapes the internal culture of a community. Those with fewer than 150 residents are likely to have strong communication and wide friendships but may lack the capital for wellness centers and pools. Those with more than 400 residents can afford more facilities but may be impersonal.

Those with more than 1,000 residents tend to resemble towns rather than tightly knit communities.

Varieties of Assisted Living: Assisted living was once a clear reference to housing built around the need for help in the activities of daily living. Now, increasingly, it comes in varieties with different levels of care. In New York, for example, moving from the least to the most care, there are different licenses for enriched housing, assisted living, enhanced assisted living, and special needs certification for Alzheimer’s Disease, dementia and cognitive impairment.

Internal services: Most communities have several restaurants, exercise rooms, an auditorium, meeting rooms, mail service, a bank, a library, a computer room, a general shop, a barber shop and beauty parlor, craft rooms and workshops, in addition to a clinic and health care services. Many have a pool large enough for laps and water aerobics, a greenhouse, raised gardens, fields for lawn games, and outdoor walking trails.

Dining plans: Traditional plans include one or more meals in the monthly fee. Some plans require using these credits each month, while others are more flexible. Newer plans provide residents with a dollar allowance to use as they please. Sometimes residents have a choice between more formal dining rooms and cafeterias without a dress code. Check menus for variety and come to as many meals as you can to judge their quality.

Parking and transportation: In snow country, you will want to know if a garage or underground parking spot is available. If not, most communities clear the snow from your car and move it for plowing. They have vans and buses to take you to shopping, entertainment, cultural events, medical appointments, and trips to regional historical sites.

Filling your days: All communities have a wealth of activities. Typically, they include performances, lectures, arts and crafts groups, painting and sculpting classes, writing groups, computer assistance and special interest groups like astronomy, history, or investing. Many communities are linked to the Osher Life Long Learning network or local colleges and universities. Most also have standard recreational fare for exercise and amusement — table tennis, bocce ball, croquet, wii bowling, pool, billiards, yoga, water aerobics, nature walks, movies, bridge, mah-jongg, bingo, scrabble and crossword puzzles.

Wellness programs: Most communities stress preventive care in their exercise programs, lectures, and dining information. In recent years, more comprehensive wellness programs integrate emotional, intellectual and spiritual well-being for the whole person.

Role of residents: First, check their role in governance. Look for a strong residents association. Ask about its relationship to management and the board of trustees. Find out how often it meets, what its committees consider, and how it connects with the executive director in recommending decisions. Second, find out how much initiative comes from the residents. Ask whether they generate ideas for new projects or better ways of managing existing programs. For example, several communities have written, edited and published books of residents’ memories of World War II.

Track internal culture: This is the most important factor in making a choice and the hardest to determine from the outside. Check the geographical spread of residents, their former walks of life (not wealth, which levels out), their range of interests. You need to visit frequently and for longer spells to determine how you would fit into this culture and how much you would enjoy it.

CAN I AFFORD A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY?

What looks like a simple question — whether you can afford to move into a retirement community — is really quite complicated. You have to balance the rising costs of staying home against the increasing monthly fees in the retirement community.

Your real estate taxes and other house expenses will grow if you stay home. But monthly fees at a retirement community will be adjusted upward annually, usually between 3 and 5 percent, based on inflation and expanded services. Determining what you can afford requires looking at both the cost of the retirement community and your own income, assets and debts.

From our experience, this process takes work. Undertake it when you have decided that moving to a retirement community might be a good option. Then choose one or two communities you like and ask for disclosure statements that include financial information. In many states, nonprofits are required to make these statements available to prospective residents, but for-profits have no obligation to do so.

Looking at the money

To assess the financial stability of a retirement community, begin by looking at its statement of financial position. Assets minus liabilities establish net worth or equity. Entry fees count as liabilities, because they obligate the community for future services, as do debts incurred for construction or renovation.

Next, look at a statement of profit or loss during the community’s fiscal year. Although nonprofits have no obligations for payouts, a string of losses curtails their ability to build reserves for future needs. Check the annual audit and look for any remarks on the community’s fiscal procedures, investment policies and general financial health.

Pay special attention to the history of increases in monthly fees and any projected increases. Also, check occupancy rates over the past few years, including reasons for anything under 85 percent, unless the community is new and developing. The number of people on waiting lists is another indicator of future occupancy rates.

Beyond financial statements, you can sometimes get information about the financial status of retirement communities from the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities.

Full disclosure statements usually contain a wealth of other information. Look for information about the community’s age and history, sponsoring organization, current directors or owners and their financial roles. Also look for connections to the surrounding town, including plans for long-range development and donor programs.

For a wealth of information about retirement communities, check the Commission on Accreditation (www.carf.org/aging/public) and the Continuing Care Accreditation Commission (www.carf-ccac/consumerguide), which joined CARF in 2003.

Contracts with retirement communities are complex legal documents, some with long-term care commitments and consequences for your estate. They deserve careful study. Before signing one, it is wise to consult both your financial adviser and a lawyer with elder care knowledge and experience.

PERSONAL FINANCES

When you have a clear idea of the retirement community’s financial condition, turn to your own finances. Calculate what you can afford by analyzing monthly income, assets, and debts. Add estimated proceeds from the sale of your house to assets after subtracting a real estate agent’s commission and other fees. A recent bank appraisal for a line of credit based on your house will give you a conservative estimate of its value. Or you can turn to a real estate agent’s estimate for an up-to-date asking price that fits current market conditions.

With net monthly income, be sure to add in any deductions that will disappear (mortgage and payments to an escrow account for real estate taxes). Many retirement communities give prospective residents comparison charts to help them calculate what they will not have to pay each month. To use a chart realistically, average the amounts you paid each month for regular expenses during the preceding year. Then add up the costs of major house repairs and maintenance (a new roof or furnace), either already paid or anticipated, over 10 years to get an average monthly cost.

Essentially, retirement communities provide maintenance-free living. By adding up all the home-owning expenses that disappear, you will get an idea of how far your monthly income will stretch to meet the community’s monthly service fees. The next step is estimating how much those fees are likely to rise, using the community’s past history. Beyond that, try to project the outer limits of your life expectancy and your spouse’s, based on age, health and family history, to reach a hypothetical number of years you might have to pay for.

Many communities with life-care contracts and some others will run your financial information through a computer program to help calculate what you can afford. Assumptions about future monthly fee increases, the number of years you will need to plan for, and the potential return on the sale of your home are built into such programs. However, all those figures are subject to change, so it is important that the financial officer of the community consult with you about your particular circumstances.

Finally, consider extra expenses if you need additional care, both in your home and in a retirement community. That requires careful analysis of your basic medical insurance and any additional major medical, veterans or long-term care coverage. Check with local information sources and services for the costs of bringing various types of care into your home and going elsewhere in the community for it. Additional costs for assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing are established in price sheets for continuing care retirement communities.

What looks like a simple question — whether you can afford to move into a retirement community — is really quite complicated. You have to balance the rising costs of staying home against the increasing monthly fees in the retirement community.

Your real estate taxes and other house expenses will grow if you stay home. But monthly fees at a retirement community will be adjusted upward annually, usually between 3 and 5 percent, based on inflation and expanded services. Determining what you can afford requires looking at both the cost of the retirement community and your own income, assets and debts.

From our experience, this process takes work. Undertake it when you have decided that moving to a retirement community might be a good option. Then choose one or two communities you like and ask for disclosure statements that include financial information. In many states, nonprofits are required to make these statements available to prospective residents, but for-profits have no obligation to do so.

When you join a waiting list for a retirement community, you specify an interest in one or more types of apartment or cottage. You may also indicate the time period during which you want to move, either narrowly or broadly. Joining the waiting list requires a fee, usually modest ($1,000 to $2,000) but sometimes more substantive. The fee is almost always refundable, apart from a small administrative segment, whenever you are no longer interested.

Costs for a Chosen Community

When a residence that fits your request and time frame becomes available, you will be called. It is important to know what will happen to your priority if you decide to pass for any reason. Some communities will bump you to the bottom of the priority list after two or three refusals while others will leave you in place.

With the signing of a contract, all or part of the entry fee becomes due. Looking at the highest entry fees sometimes convinces people that they cannot afford a retirement community, but that is deceptive. Depending on the type of contract, entry fees have different inclusions and are partly or even fully refundable if you leave the community.

In the early years of continuing care retirement communities, the value of the traditional entry fee declined 2 percent each month for 50 months, reaching zero — meaning no refund for those who leave — in just over four years.

Now, in our visits we have found every percentage of refund, from 50 to 100 percent, with usually two or three options available at any community. It is also important to understand the timing of refunds, since many contracts require re-occupation of the living quarters by a new resident to trigger it, while others specify a time limit. In either case, you are expected to continue paying monthly fees in the interval.

Life care (Type A) entry fees are the most expensive because they include unlimited long-term care purchased in one lump sum. If you already have long-term care insurance, many communities will offer you a modified life care contract (Type B) to merge your coverage with their partial coverage. These contracts usually specify the number of days of health care allowed each year without additional cost and whether unused days are cumulative. In all Type A and B contracts, the resident usually pays the modest cost of additional meals in health care.

When evaluating the higher entry fees for life care, remember that a good chunk of it, often between 35 and 40 percent, is deductible as medical expense on income tax returns. That deduction also applies to monthly fees paid throughout the year.

Fee-for-service (Type C) contracts usually have the lowest (or occasionally no) entrance fee, because you pay an additional amount for all services beyond independent living. Sometimes, the contracts guarantee lifetime residence, with or without priority for health care. In recent years, a growing number of fee-for-service contracts provide an optional life care add-on for an upfront payment. Surprisingly, the ones we have seen cost considerably less than $100,000 and are based on estimated health care costs rather than the size of your residence.

Pure rental (Type D) contracts, either monthly or annual, carry no priority for any available health care. They have no entry fee, but a security deposit or redecorating fee may be required. Equity or co-op (Type E) contracts provide either ownership of a residence or a share in the co-op, as well as voting rights for the conduct of its business. The entry fee is replaced by the cost of the residence. Any available health care is on a fee-for-service basis. The normal taxes, deductions and risks of home ownership apply. Usually the co-op sets the price range to maintain consistency of value when you want to sell.

The general principles of all real estate markets apply to continuing care and other retirement communities. The relative value of surrounding properties in the neighborhood, town and region will be reflected in the entry fee and have some influence on monthly fees. And both the entry fee and monthly fees are based on the square footage of the apartment or cottage. That means calculating what you can afford in any chosen retirement community will be determined by the size of residence you choose.

Time to choose your retirement community

This final article in the series explores a number of retirement communities within a reasonable distance from Glens Falls that have substantial independent living quarters. It does not include nursing homes or institutions primarily for assisted living or memory care. Many of the retirement communities focused on independent living do include one or more of those additional care components and some have all.

We must abandon a common but false expectation, that such communities can be ranked from best to worst. Best for whom? The best choice has to fit your interests, lifestyle and personality.

The sponsor listed for each community is the controlling association or corporation. Whether not-for-profit or for-profit, these entities share the mission of providing comfortable and attractive living quarters and services for seniors.

Allow half a day for a visit, which normally includes an interview, a tour of the community center, other facilities and living quarters. If the community has levels of care beyond independent living (assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing), ask for the tour to include them. Stay for a lunch or dinner if you can to sample the food service and quality. If you like what you see, ask how you can talk to some residents and return to become more familiar with the community.

This final article in the series explores a number of retirement communities within a reasonable distance from Glens Falls that have substantial independent living quarters. It does not include nursing homes or institutions primarily for assisted living or memory care. Many of the retirement communities focused on independent living do include one or more of those additional care components and some have all.

We must abandon a common but false expectation, that such communities can be ranked from best to worst. Best for whom? The best choice has to fit your interests, lifestyle and personality.

The sponsor listed for each community is the controlling association or corporation. Whether not-for-profit or for-profit, these entities share the mission of providing comfortable and attractive living quarters and services for seniors.

Allow half a day for a visit, which normally includes an interview, a tour of the community center, other facilities and living quarters. If the community has levels of care beyond independent living (assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing), ask for the tour to include them. Stay for a lunch or dinner if you can to sample the food service and quality. If you like what you see, ask how you can talk to some residents and return to become more familiar with the community.

See Class Forum page for more details on some of the specific communities visited by the Foulkes.

---