compromisers may not make great heroes but they do make great democracies.

If you are trying to persuade people to join with you, there are three general methods. You can coerce them with threats, convince them by pointing out their own interests, or entice them by appealing to their ideals.

It is probable, however, that they would have disapproved of people on either side who used the Lord’s name or the Ten Commandments as a way to divide Americans rather than as a way to unite them.

The toughest part of political leadership, however, is knowing when to compromise and when to stand firm on principle.

Franklin and Jefferson and John Adams were on it. They knew that leadership required not merely asserting values, but finding a balance when values conflict.

He was able to unify people by displaying the humility, or at least the pretense of humility, that is so lacking during eras of hyper-partisanship but remains the essence of liberty and democracy.

Franklin was a very practical man, and I wrote my biography of him partly to celebrate the idea that a healthy democracy requires pragmatic people who can find common ground during times of great partisan division.

Plutarch noted at the beginning of his Lives: “Sometimes a matter of lesser moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their character and inclinations, than the most famous sieges.”

Henry Kissinger ruminated, to those on his plane, about such leaders as Anwar Sadat and Golda Meir. “As a professor, I tended to think of history as run by impersonal forces,” he said. “But when you see it in practice, you see the difference personalities make.”