Originally published Apr. 23, 2014 on Forbes.
Don’t be fooled.
Throughout history, every generation believes it understands how our world works. And yet we look back and realize that many conventional beliefs were wrong. Today I'd like to share a story that makes my skin crawl, because it illustrates just how wrong our leaders can be, even when their own personal safety is at issue.
George Washington was President of the United States from 1789 to 1797. On December 12, 1799, he was back to private life, and spent about four hours on horseback supervising farming activities. The weather went from rain to hail to snow, and Washington was wet when he returned home. By the next morning, he had a sore throat. 24 hours later, the throat infection was so severe that he was having trouble breathing.
This was when Washington asked George Rawlins, an overseer at Mount Vernon, to bleed him. Yes, bloodletting was still an accepted medical practice, and Rawlins took a half-pint of blood.
By nine in the morning, Washington's longtime physician and family friend, Dr. James Creik, arrived. He "produced a blister on Washington's throat in an attempt to balance the fluids in his body". Then he bled Washington a second time.
At noon, they gave the former President an enema and bled him again. This time, they took 32 ounces of blood. Later, they deliberately induced vomiting.
On the evening of December 14, Washington passed away.
I've been squirming in my seat telling you this story, which is based on this account from the MountVernon.org web site. In retrospect, what trained physicians did to Washington is tantamount to torture. In Washington's judgment, these men were the best qualified to help him survive.
When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is rooted in the judgments of men like George Washington, men who thought that you could cure a throat infection by bleeding, vomiting or pooping. When the Court decides how digital technology should be managed or complex healthcare issues be resolved, they look back to the wisdom of the bloodletters.
I do not wish to imply that Washington or his colleagues were stupid. To the contrary, in every generation we do our best to understand the world in which we live. History teaches us that 20, 50 or 100 years later, much of the conventional wisdom of any age is proved wrong.
Once you understand this, you understand that it often makes sense to challenge conventional wisdom. Just because most people agree with a strategy does not mean that strategy will work. Just because a leader is willing to lay his own life on the line does not mean he is right.
The trick, of course, is to be smarter - not dumber - than the conventional wisdom you seek to replace. I can't tell you how to do this, but I suspect that listening carefully to dissenting opinions is always a wise thing to do. Martha Washington voiced her concerns about bloodletting; if doctors and her husband had listened, George Washington might have lived longer.