"RM" (Part 3 of 3)

Core idea

The third part of 'RM' describes the Moses luncheons — strategic hospitality at favorite restaurants (Marie's, the Plaza, Twenty-One) where Moses brought potential opponents in friendly settings and made disagreement socially difficult. It is more difficult to challenge a man's facts over cocktails than over a conference table, Caro writes. The luncheons were not random social occasions; they were instruments of control, scheduled precisely when Moses needed a specific person's acquiescence.

Why it matters

The luncheons as scheduled instruments

Moses's secretary kept a careful schedule of luncheons matched to upcoming decisions. A mayor's vote on a Triborough project on Tuesday was preceded by a Friday lunch with Moses at Marie's. A federal funding decision was preceded by a luncheon at the Plaza. The match between hospitality and decision-need was deliberate.

Why disagreement at lunch is harder

Caro's analytic point: people who have just been treated with great personal warmth find it socially difficult to disagree sharply on substance. The luncheon mode bypassed the formal disagreement channels. Decisions reached over cocktails carried social commitments that conference-table decisions did not.

Key takeaways

Mental model

Copy sourceZoom

Practical application

Example

Most U.S. Supreme Court justices have written that the social interactions between justices — lunches, conference dinners — matter as much as the formal arguments in shaping decisions. Moses understood the same dynamic in NYC politics fifty years earlier.

Related lessons