David Gergen's Voice

2011-11-29T12:49:00.001-05:00

Thank you for being involved with the political discussions here. I hope you will continue and move with me to my website. Please join me at www.davidgergen.com. You can also find me on YouTube , Twitter, facebook and CNN.

Best~

David Gergen

Gergen: Utter Failure of The Super Committee

2011-11-23T07:35:00.001-05:00

Key moments in the CNN debate

2011-11-23T05:32:00.001-05:00

From the CNN Political Unit

updated 2:13 AM EST, Wed November 23, 2011

Analysts pick debate's winners, losers

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Gloria Borger said "the more positive Newt Gingrich" may be more appealing to voters
"Typical things that are red meat aren't working this year," said Ari Fleischer
David Gergen: Gingrich's "more humane position" on illegal immigration will help in long run
Rick Perry has done a poor job of conveying his ideas to people, said Dana Loesch

Washington (CNN) -- The Patriot Act, immigration and securing the borders, and whether the United States should provide aid to Pakistan were some of the biggest points of contention in Tuesday's CNN National Security Debate.

Here's how CNN's analysts and contributors saw winners and losers and key moments in the debate.

CNN analyst Gloria Borger on Newt Gingrich's debut as front-runner:

"You never know who's going to show up: It could be the good Newt, smart Newt, full-of-ideas Newt, who I think we saw tonight. Or it could be the negative, nasty, anti-media stuff.

CNN GOP debate memorable moments

Bachmann hits Obama on Keystone decision

Perry slams Obama over military

Perry: You must secure the border

"And I think tonight we saw the first Newt Gingrich, the more positive Newt Gingrich who sort of had a vision and took on Ron Paul, and the Patriot Act debate.

"It was very, very interesting -- the intellectual Newt -- but he was appealing, which is something I don't think he's really been before. I think it's probably because he's more relaxed, and he's doing better in the polls and people like him. I think he was more likable this evening."

CNN contributor Ari Fleischer on the race's dynamics:

"When you look at all of these debates, is the Republican Party supposed to nominate the most conservative and this year against Barack Obama the biggest outsider.

"But who's leading? The biggest established figures -- Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Who is not getting traction? The one who is taking the toughest, most conservative positions, Rick Perry -- no-fly zone over Syria, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, send Congress home, cut their pay. Typical things that are red meat aren't working this year.

"The biggest thought during the debates, Newt Gingrich, propelled himself back from the depths. It will be a fascinating open primary for Republicans.

"Another debate, another good night for Newt. But the trend here is those who have fallen behind are not coming back up so the question is when the music stops, who is going to be in the not-Romney chair? 78 percent are not locked-in. A lot of time to go."

CNN analyst David Gergen on whether Newt Gingrich's position on allowing long-term illegal immigrants citizenship will hurt him:

Cain calls CNN's Wolf Blitzer wrong name

Republican candidates debate security

GOP candidates debate Iran strategy

Gingrich: U.S. look to Chile's reforms

"[It does hurt him] probably in the short term. But I will have to tell you, in the long term, i think it may not.

"He broke with the orthodoxy. He did have to take a more humane position. They want a division between those who have been here a long time and let their families stay versus those who have been here a short time. The politics of it, yeah, he'll take a hit in the conservative community. He'll get credit for willing to say what he believes, I think, with the broader public.

"He's just now, for the first time, Americans who are not Republicans, independents are thinking, might Newt Gingrich be the candidate? With a lot of the people seeing the humane side of Gingrich tonight, I think was a plus."

CNN contributor Dana Loesch on Rick Perry's muddled message:

"I don't think it's the ideas that failed, I think it's perhaps the vehicle in which they were delivered -- forgetting the third department that you would cut necessarily isn't helpful. I do think he's coming back from that.

"But that being said, I think if those ideas had been delivered in a Newt Gingrich way -- authoritative, aggressive, dare I say confrontational -- I think it would have gone over a lot better, and we'd see more support from those results.

"You have to be able to convey your ideas to people and that's what Rick Perry hasn't been been doing in the beginning."

Have they gone nuts in Washington?

2011-11-21T11:18:00.001-05:00

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst

updated 10:49 AM EST, Mon November 21, 2011

The deficit super committee was asked to find more than a trillion dollars in debt reduction.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

David Gergen: Congress' failure to reach debt deal is reckless
He says leaders in Washington, including president, have failed the people
At a time of economic crisis, compromise on budget would be a prudent step, he says
Gergen: Congress and White House are punting on other economic issues

Editor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter: @David_Gergen.

Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Have they gone nuts in Washington?

Last summer, as the debt ceiling debacle ended, our political leaders held out high hope that a "super committee" would meet for 10 weeks this fall and forge a bipartisan agreement that would do far more to bring down the nation's deficits.

Everyone knew that members of the committee had deep differences.

David Gergen

Republicans complain that federal spending under President Obama has gone up dramatically and cuts should come there before any new taxes.

Democrats say that the rich have increased their wealth much more rapidly than the other 99% of Americans, while their taxes have gone down, so that the first order of business is to raise taxes on them. Both sides have valid points, worthy of debate.

But such contentious disagreements have characterized our politics since the dawn of the republic, and in almost all crises of the past, political leaders have worked out compromises. As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1790, "In general I think it necessary to give as well as take in a government like ours." George Washington agreed and pushed continually for what he called "a spirit of accommodation."

Our "leaders" of today, however, have tossed aside the wisdom of the Founders. The super committee is now hours away from abject failure on what should have been relatively easy work. Some tell us not to worry: A breakdown will automatically trigger "sequestration" -- automatic cuts in defense and domestic programs starting in January 2013. But there are already efforts within Congress to void the sequestration process.

A related concern is how financial markets will react. Some economists tell us not to worry about that, either: They say the markets have long assumed failure and have baked that into their investment decisions. But who knows for sure? Who can tell how a volatile mixture of political failure in Europe and in the U.S. will play out in coming weeks? The truth is nobody knows for sure.

If super committee fails, what's next?

Explain it to me: The 'Super Committee'

That's why this failure of the super committee represents a reckless, irresponsible gamble by our "leaders" in Washington. It's difficult to remember a Congress that has put the nation so much at risk in the service of ideology and to hold onto office. Partisans on both sides are grievously failing the country.

An honest assessment would lay blame on the White House doorstep, too. Yes, the president finally put up a plan a few weeks back and made a few phone calls. But he has been exercising the most passive leadership imaginable. Nor have the Republican candidates for president been any more engaged. Why are their campaigns so focused only on 2013 and so detached from a crisis that continues to deepen in D.C. right now?

It is not as if Congress and the White House are working productively together to solve other problems. They have done almost nothing in recent months to create more jobs and to shore up most homeowners. Hope is not a strategy, as we know, but it seems to be ours right now.

Even as the president promises a larger military presence in the Pacific (how are we going to afford it?), some businessmen are coming home from Shanghai and privately saying China has already won the economic rivalry.

Meanwhile, the White House has played politics with a proposed oil pipeline from Canada. And few raised a peep a few days ago when the chief economist of the International Energy Agency warned, based upon a serious study, that the world would face "irreversible climate change in five years" unless we change course on new energy infrastructure.

Sorry, our noble leaders tell us, we have to focus now on election 2012. What was it that Louis XV used to say? "Après moi, le déluge"?

Is Big Money Corrupting Politics?

2011-11-17T10:55:00.001-05:00

Is money's deep role in politics the root of our woes?

2011-11-16T09:59:00.001-05:00

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, and Michael Zuckerman, Special to CNN

updated 1:05 PM EST, Tue November 15, 2011

Activists carry a placard depicting Congress as a puppet of corporate lobbyists in a May, 2010 event in Washington.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Book alleges Pelosi, Boehner, other political leaders benefit from insider trading
Gergen, Zuckerman: Whether allegations are true or not, money plays huge role in politics
Writers cite new book that argues lobbyists' money permeates and corrupts Congress
Writers: Fundraising, paying cost of running for office: Money drives our democracy

(CNN) -- This past Sunday's "60 Minutes" and the latest issue of Newsweek bring back to the fore the complicated issue of money and politics. Both highlight a new book by Peter Schweizer, "Throw Them All Out," which rails against what Schweizer calls "honest graft."

Schweizer charges that leaders from both houses of Congress have been drawing on insider knowledge to make money in the stock market -- a practice that is banned in American industry and restricted in other sectors of government. And although he is a conservative at the Hoover Institution, Schweizer is an equal opportunity scourge, attacking both Democratic and Republican leaders.

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Republican speaker John Boehner have fired back, asserting that Schweizer has misrepresented them and they have done nothing wrong. Until competent legal authorities investigate, both deserve the benefit of the doubt. The public does, of course, deserve a more thorough airing of the facts. Equally important, Congress ought to have rules about conflicts of interest that are as demanding as those for people who work in the executive and judicial branches; so far, Congress skates free.

But whatever the rebuttals from Capitol Hill, this controversy underscores a deepening sense that money plays far too large a role in politics. If anything unites the tea party and the Occupy Wall Street protesters, surely it is the sense that the system is rigged in favor of big shots in Washington and against little guys back home. Money is at the heart of it.

David Gergen

A new book that should receive far more attention makes an even more sweeping and thoroughly researched case against money in politics -- "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress -- and a Plan to Stop It," by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig.

The author is a man of many parts: Lessig made his name as a legal theorist in issues surrounding new technologies, but he also has a keen interest in politics. He was the youngest member of the Pennsylvania delegation that nominated Ronald Reagan at the Republican convention in 1980, clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and later endorsed his friend and former University of Chicago Law School colleague Barack Obama for president.

Lessig, who lately has been working to organize a movement for a new constitutional convention, is disillusioned with both right and left and blasts away at them for essentially selling the republic out. But his charge is not that politicians in Washington are taking money on the side, à la Spiro "Pass the Bags" Agnew. He doubts much of that goes on today. Rather, he is deeply troubled by what he calls "dependence corruption" -- the degree to which politicians have become dependent on money from lobbyists in order to pay for their campaigns, and the ways in which that dependence has increasingly distorted public policy in ways that do serious harm to the country, while also (and just as perniciously) undermining public trust.

His argument is wide-ranging and impossible to do justice to in a brief column. But a few of the most striking facts he marshals are worth recognizing. Among them:

-- The cost of getting elected to Congress has exploded: from 1974 to 2008, Lessig notes, the average cost of a re-election campaign ballooned from $56,000 to more than $1.3 million, a more than twentyfold increase that far outpaces inflation.

-- Fundraising is a constant concern: Candidates have to spend between 30% and 70% of their time raising money. (Lobbyists, however can ease this pressure through many kinds of what Lessig calls "legislative subsidies" -- advice, research, support, and most of all, campaign cash.)

-- The revolving door between Congress and lobbyists is spinning faster: In the 1970s, just 3% of retiring members of Congress went into lobbying. But by 2004, in the previous seven years more than half of all senators and 42 percent of House members had made the switch.

-- The incentives for lobbying are clear. A 2009 paper found, for example, that firms get between $6 and $20 back for every $1 they invest in lobbying for tax benefits.

With regard to taxes and regulation, Lessig's observations are particularly sharp. Business leaders argue, for example, that they are not investing as much as they might in new jobs because they face so much uncertainty that they don't know what to expect from the government from one year to the next. Many citizens are likewise baffled by some regulations and, especially, the tax code: Why is it so massive, so confusing, sometimes so seemingly wasteful and preferential?

Lessig's explanation is that this complexity and uncertainty is no accident, and that's because politicians in Washington have an interest in keeping business guessing and the rest of us confused.

Pass a tax law for five years and lobbyists won't need to come around with contributions for a long time; make it a one-year law and they'll be back next week. Likewise, keep the code incomprehensible, and the voters won't know if they're getting hosed. Those are fascinating insights.

One of Lessig's heroes is Henry David Thoreau, and he likes to quote the American philosopher as saying, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Lessig sees the role of money in politics as the root of the country's current ills, from health care to education to the economy. He also thinks it explains why the parties appear to have grown closer in economic ideology -- where the concentrated corporate lobbying money is -- while growing more polarized in social ideology, for which more extreme viewpoints yield a bigger haul. He is quick to note that this corruption is "not the product of evil" -- it leads to "great harm," but is the result of "no bin Laden."

Without "great evil," Lessig reflects, he is "not yet sure that we can muster the will to fight." That's a deep concern, and it calls to mind the memorable formulation of the economist Charles Schultze, who once divided our problems into two categories: a wolf at the door, or termites in the basement.

As a nation, we've always been a lot better at handling the first than the second. But if Lessig is right about the campaign finance system, it's a major case of termites in the basement -- and addressing it will require more than simply throwing all the bums out. In Lessig's view, it may require laying a whole new section of our foundation instead.

Why 2012 election will be very close

2011-11-11T06:14:00.001-05:00

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst

updated 8:22 PM EST, Wed November 9, 2011

Union supporters fought back against Gov. John Kasich's bill limiting rights of public employee unions in Ohio.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

David Gergen: Two messages can be drawn from Tuesday 's votes
He says voters in some places struck back at GOP for going too far
Democrats, unions succeeded in overturning Ohio law on public employees
Gergen: The votes sent signals that next year's election will be very close

Editor's note: Editor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter: @David_Gergen

(CNN) -- Amidst the welter of election results from voting yesterday, two conclusions seem pretty clear:

First, an ancient rule of American politics still holds: Do not overreach. In both Ohio and Mississippi, Republicans went too far toward the extreme end of the spectrum and voters rose up to smite them.

The clearest example was Ohio, where Republican Gov. John Kasich took on the costs of public employee unions as a way to balance the state budget and strengthen the quality of K-12 education. This is a popular approach among Republican leaders these days and in the hands of a savvy political leader like Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, it can also win widespread voter support.

David Gergen

But Republicans in Ohio overplayed their hand: In a bill they passed early this year, GOP state legislators persuaded Kasich to include first responders, police and firemen among those whose benefits and bargaining rights would be cut. That turned out to be a disastrous mistake, as the general public has large reservoirs of respect for men and women who protect them. (Duh).

Labor unions saw their opening and amassed a large number of signatures to put a referendum on the ballot yesterday calling for repeal of the legislation. The unions, supported by the Obama White House, then poured money and resources into a campaign against the bill.

Altogether it is estimated that labor spent some $30 million to defeat the bill, about twice as much as business community and conservatives spent in support. Kasich, who is otherwise regarded as one of the bright lights of the GOP, was also seen as bullheaded in his campaign approach, vowing to run over his opponents.

The result was a stinging defeat for the GOP in yesterday's referendum: the public union bill was rejected by some 61% of voters at last count. Had there not been so much of an overreach, observers on the ground believe that Kasich & Co. might well have won.

Not all was lost for the GOP in Ohio: In a campaign that attracted less notice, conservatives won a victory of similar proportions that would ban mandates requiring everyone to secure health insurance. Although partially symbolic, the vote was widely seen as a rejection of Obamacare by Ohio. Still, the public union bill was the big enchilada -- and its defeat has important implications for 2012.

In Mississippi, pro-life conservatives placed a "personhood" amendment to the state constitution on the ballot. Mississippi is one of the most conservative states in the country and both the GOP and Democratic candidates for governor endorsed the initiative. But as others have noted, opponents apparently were able to make the case that the initiative was so broadly drawn that it would ban some contraceptives and in-vitro fertilization and might even lead to criminal investigations of women who suffered miscarriages. In other words, it went too far. And down it went yesterday in a surprising defeat.

These results and others point to a second general conclusion about voting yesterday: the general elections next fall are shaping up to be highly competitive and very tough. Go back to Ohio for a moment: The state's economy is unusually sluggish and Obama has become unpopular. In the off-year elections of 2010, Republicans seized five Congressional seats out of Democratic hands.

Ohio was shaping up as a strong potential pick-up for Republicans in the presidential race of 2012. But yesterday's referendums, drawing a heavy turnout of voters, sent a clear message that progressives are still willing and able to fight back. Color Ohio as a toss-up for 2012.

A parallel observation might be drawn from results in Virginia: Buoyed by the 2010 off-year elections, Republicans hold the state House there and hoped yesterday to sweep the state Senate. As of the moment, with votes still being counted, it appears that at best, they will secure a 20-20 tie in the Senate.

Or take Arizona: The man considered the architect of the tough laws against immigration went down in a recall fight.

To be sure, there were other areas where Republicans did well yesterday -- as in Mississippi, where they easily held on to the governor's office that Haley Barbour is vacating. But overall, the elections reinforce the impression that the huge tea party tide we saw in 2010 is still powerful but is receding somewhat.

We may be returning to something close to a 50-50 nation -- and that means rock-'em, sock-'em campaigns over the coming year.

OutFront 5 Fast Questions for David Gergen

2011-11-04T19:19:00.000-04:00

Nov 4, 2011

02:25 PM ET

Comments (Add comment)

Permalink

OutFront 5 Fast Questions for David Gergen

You sent in your questions, and OutFront digital producer Mark Joyella got answers from CNN senior political analyst David Gergen. Gergen talks about Jon Huntsman, a Biden-for-Clinton swap, and, of course, George Clooney.

To get your questions in for a future OF 5 Fast Questions, like us on Facebookand follow us on Twitter. We'll let you know who's coming on the show and give you a chance to send in your questions.

Previously in the series: James Carville, who told one of our Facebook fans he won't be running for office in Louisiana because his "background is not conducive to opposition research."

NOTE: A few have you have already spotted her–a cameo in the background byErin Burnett.

Cain must give straight answers, and fast

2011-11-04T12:26:00.000-04:00

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst

updated 5:35 AM EST, Thu November 3, 2011

Herman Cain addresses an event Wednesday in Virginia. He didn't answer reporters' questions about harassment allegations.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

David Gergen says Herman Cain has about 48 hours to get control of this controversy
Conservatives are dismayed at Cain's inept handling of the story, Gergen writes
Cain might be embarrassed, he says, but must show public he's open and fair
Gergen: The public is entitled to straight answers from a potential president

(CNN) -- Herman Cain may very well bounce back and remain a popular contender for the GOP presidential nomination, but the normal rules of politics would say that he has about 48 hours to get his campaign under control.

As he struggles with the allegations swirling around him, it is worth remembering that so far, there is no hard evidence that he has done anything wrong. It is also worth recalling that in sexual harassment cases, perceptions of men and women can differ and lines can be blurry. That was especially true in the 1990s when the alleged events took place. He deserves the benefit of the doubt until we know more.

His fortunes have been bolstered as well by the way conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have rushed to his defense. Limbaugh has sparked a familiar cry among tea partiers about "liberal media witch hunts." On Wednesday, Politico -- the news organization that broke the story -- reported that voters in Iowa aren't paying much attention: Cain still rides high there.

But no one, least of all the Cain forces, should believe he is getting this behind him. Far from it. The explosive way that a Washington lawyer has jumped into the middle of this episode, as he did Tuesday night when he called in to Anderson Cooper's CNN show, is throwing fat into the fire.

David Gergen

Joel P. Bennett, asserting he represents a woman who he says complained about Cain harassing her at the National Restaurant Association, told Cooper that his client wants to get her side of the story out. She is offended by Cain's proclamations that he was falsely accused and thinks he is lying.

At the moment, she has promised Bennett a copy of her original settlement with the restaurant association. Bennett probably will ask the association to release her from her confidentiality agreement so she can talk openly -- although she is reportedly still considering this request and could decide not to pursue a release. Even if she does try for a release and the restaurant group refuses, it seems probable that the contents of the settlement will find their way into the media. Leaks happen.

And at least one other accuser might be waiting in the wings: The New York Times reported Wednesday that the National Restaurant Association gave a second woman a full year's salary -- $35,000 -- as severance after she complained that Cain had behaved inappropriately toward her. A full year? That's a lot of money and suggests -- along with the Times' reporting of "heavy drinking" at the event in question -- that she may have a story to tell, too.

GOP operative says he witnesses bad behavior by Cain

Once we see a real, live woman step forward and accuse a major presidential candidate of sexual harassment and lying, it will almost certainly become a circus with Cain smack in the middle of it. It may become unfair -- but it also can be politically lethal. Clarence Thomas survived because he was smart, tough and ready to take on his accusers. Cain so far has shown none of that.

Cain refuses to discuss allegations

Cain lashes out at reporters

Accuser's attorney on how story leaked

What Cain's body language says

Moreover, the sexual harassment story is only one of the possible scandals brewing around Cain. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported this week that a private corporation, set up by Cain's chief of staff, has given the Cain campaign some $40,000 in goods and services. The report has been overshadowed, but it won't go away: If that happened, those gifts could be violations of the law. The longer the sexual harassment controversy continues, the more the press is likely to dig in elsewhere.

So far, the greatest source of concern among some conservatives is how inept Cain and his team have been in responding. Politico gave them 10 days to prepare before going public on the restaurant association allegations, and yet Cain still didn't have his facts and story straight. For political pros, two days of conflicting accounts were painful to watch.

All of which is to say that Cain is now under enormous time pressure to get his campaign under control. He needs to put an end to the sex controversy and do it fast. If he permits this fire to rage through the weekend and into next week, he could well be toast.

What should he do? It may seem a hard call, but it isn't really. He should announce that he would be fine with the restaurant association releasing the accuser from her confidentiality agreement, invite her to sit down with him and talk it through, and then let each of them make their case to the public. He may have to suffer some embarrassment, but he has to show the country he is strong, open, fair and ready to lead.

Cain may think that is asking too much of him, that the media is prying too deeply and he is being railroaded. Personally, I have some sympathy for that perspective: Too often the media pokes and sensationalizes too much, especially into private life. But he is asking people to entrust him with the most powerful office on Earth. Before we make that choice, is it not fair to voters to get straight answers from a candidate about who he is and how he has acted in his professional life?

Professors Lessig, Gergen Discuss Corruption

2011-11-02T07:53:00.000-04:00

By MICHAEL G. PROULX, CONTRIBUTING WRITER for The Harvard Crimson

Published: Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig discussed corruption in Congress on Tuesday as part of an effort to promote his new book on the issue, “Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It.”

In addition to serving as director of the Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Lessig is a staunch critic of copyright restrictions.

Discussing the book with Lessig was Harvard Kennedy School Professor David R. Gergen, who is currently a senior political analyst at CNN.

Both speakers argued that the corruption we should be concerned with is not necessarily “quid pro quo.”

“The type of corruption we have here is not one of bad souls, but of good souls that are part of a system that perpetuates a focus on what [money] wants and not what the people want,” Lessig said.

During the presentation, Lessig outlined three ways to tackle corruption in Congress.

“Congress must publicly fund public elections, campaign contributions need to be limited, and Congress should limit but not ban independent expenditures,” Lessig said.

During the conversation, Lessig cited a Gallup poll from last August that pegged Congressional approval at all-time low of 13 percent and disapproval at 84 percent.

“We all agree that money buys results in Congress, and that leads to an extraordinary lack of confidence in the system,” Lessig said. “Government needs to recognize that a general lack of confidence in Congress is enough of a reason for reform.”

Lessig also praised the Occupy movement.

“People need to be willing to get involved in their government, and everyone agrees that money shouldn’t be in politics,” Lessig said.

Lessig also cited the founding fathers as a source for inspiration and compromise.

“They were actually radically different people,” Lessig said. “Regardless, they sat together in the same room and saved the Union.”

Lessig also discussed the importance of unity to address the larger issues that affect all of us.

“Politicians profit from us hating each other,” Lessig said. “The media too.”

As part of his effort to limit corruption in Congress, Lessig said he is working to educate others about the issues and help them connect the dots. This was part of his motivation for talking about the issue at Harvard, he said.

“I appreciate how he framed the problem as a group of good people getting caught in a system where money influences decisions,” said James E. Kath, a graduate student in biophysics. “Ragging on politicians and labeling them as evil won’t get us anywhere.”

Will the end of Gadhafi sway U.S. politics?

2011-10-22T11:40:00.002-04:00

By David Gergen and Michael Zuckerman

President Obama comments Thursday on the death of Moammar Gadhafi, Libya's longtime leader.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

President Obama said Gadhafi's death made it a "momentous day in the history of Libya"
Authors say the demise of Gadhafi won't greatly boost Obama's re-election chances
They say Americans are focused on domestic, not foreign policy, concerns
Authors: Obama can argue that he wields force more prudently and surgically than Bush

Originally published for CNN on September 20,2011

Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- With Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's dramatic demise this Thursday morning, the world is rid of a tyrant, and a free Libya has jumped a mile forward to stability (though, as CNN's Ben Wedeman reports, there are still many more miles to go).

Yet in America, we are speeding toward the 2012 presidential elections, and talk quickly turns to the political considerations here. President Obama appeared Thursday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden to celebrate this "momentous day in the history of Libya" and to declare that "one of the world's longest dictators is no more."

As Obama pledged his support to Libya's future, many in the crowd and watching at home surely began to wonder about the president's own future. It is a much-discussed irony that a president elected largely around domestic concerns has gone on to amass some sterling foreign policy bona fides, while his approval on matters stateside sinks deeper and deeper. But what impact, if any, will his string of overseas successes have on his standing -- and re-election prospects -- here at home?

Nor does it help that Libya was never a particularly popular war in the first place. A March Gallup poll taken just one day after our Air Force began helping enforce the no-fly zone over Libya showed Americans approving of our involvement, 47% to 37% -- a majority, yes, but lower than every other foreign military action since Vietnam (including Grenada and Kosovo). Critics may likewise downplay how much credit the president deserves for Gadhafi's demise -- after all, there's no indication American forces took him out, the way they got al-Awlaki and, unforgettably, bin Laden.The first, most obvious answer is: not much. While you might expect a president who has bagged Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, and now Moammar Gadhafi in just under six months to be riding high in the public's estimation, foreign policy concerns simply don't register much on the public's radar these days. With the economy sputtering -- and veering dangerously toward the edge of another downturn -- voters are homed in there. An October Gallup poll found 32% mentioning "unemployment/jobs" as the most important issue facing the nation, with another 31% mentioning "the economy in general." Where did "wars/fear of war" and "terrorism" stack up? Two percent each

Nevertheless, there may be some political benefits in this string of successes for Obama: Even if they don't lift his approval up to dazzling heights, they fortify him against criticism on the foreign policy flank and give courage to his remaining supporters. The victories may also help firm up the president's standing as a decisive leader, a contrast that may prove helpful if he faces former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- whom rivals on both sides of the aisle like to portray as changing with the wind -- in the general election.

Defense Secretary Bob Gates said in September that Obama's decision to go after bin Laden with Navy SEALs was one of the most courageous ever made by any of the eight presidents he has served -- and Obama's gamble on Libya (derided by critics quoting the characterization of "leading from behind") certainly seems to be paying off as well. His approach (later redubbed by the publication that first reported it, "leading from behind the scenes") will also bolster a campaign argument that may resonate not only with his base, but also with swing voters increasingly wary of foreign engagements: that Obama wields force much more prudently and surgically than the reckless GOP -- that he has wound down Iraq and helped win back international respect, all while delivering strong results.

Still, domestic issues reign supreme, and so it's hard to say that the credit Obama will get for these successes abroad will be enough to turn back the tide of his sinking poll numbers. An August NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Obama's approval on foreign policy a positive 50% to 45%, but the same poll gave him horrendous 37% to 59% marks on the economy and a 44% to 51% disapproval overall. Since then, he's only slipped, with the latest Gallup tracking poll putting his total approval at 39% to 54%.

Obama may yet get a bump from the Gadhafi news, but it's hard to imagine it overshadowing the bin Laden spike, which itself proved extraordinarily fleeting. In the meantime, if he wants to bring the numbers back up for the long haul, the president will have to find a way to transfer some of that daring success of his War Room into his domestic Cabinet.

In their second terms, presidents often find themselves drifting into more and more foreign policy initiatives, both as a way to bolster their legacies and because they find that, with their domestic political capital usually spent, it's the only arena left where they can make a big impact. Obama has gone through that cycle a bit quicker than most, and it leaves one questioning what his second term would look like.

Whether or not that comes to pass, he will at the very least be able to console himself that even if the voters aren't rushing to record these international victories, the history books one day will.

Invite One & All to See a Rising Star - Mike Zuckerman

2011-10-20T00:07:00.000-04:00

Mike Zuckerman appears on CNN at 10:10 am Thursday to explore a blog we jointly wrote about spreading protests and income inequality in U.S. Mike is a recent honors graduate from Harvard and works closely with me.

Your Money- A Dangerous Political Game

2011-10-19T18:31:00.000-04:00

Aired on CNN October 15, 2011- Are our political leaders paying more attention to creating jobs or keeping their own? Stephen Moore, Chrystia Freeland, and David Gergen tell Ali Velshi why American's trust is at an all time low, and how to fix it.

Why GOP candidates should cool it

2011-10-19T16:24:00.000-04:00

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst

updated 8:26 AM EST, Wed October 19, 2011

Mitt Romney, left, clashes with Rick Perry during the CNN debate Tuesday.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Gergen: Candidates went too far in their attacks in CNN debate
He says they violated GOP tradition, with sharp personal accusations
Romney retains his edge, but Perry put in a strong performance, Gergen says
Gergen: Support for the 9-9-9 plan may have peaked, hurting Cain's prospects

Las Vegas, Nevada (CNN) -- Mitt Romney walked into Tuesday night's Republican debate as the front-runner and, in my view, walked out in an even stronger position. But in retrospect, he and party leaders might wish they could have invoked the Las Vegas rule: What happens there stays there.

Romney has frequently been the best of the candidates as a debater. With the exception of Newt Gingrich, he has the firmest grasp of his arguments and knows better how to deploy his facts. While he doesn't convey much warmth, he does signal competence, especially on the economy.

But Tuesday night he showed more: He demonstrated that he could take a punch and then counterpunch with considerable skill. When he and Herman Cain clashed over Cain's 9-9-9 plan, Romney won the argument over state tax increases and stuffed Cain with his apples and oranges line. When Rick Perry launched his personal attack on Romney over illegal immigrants, Romney gave at least as good as he got. And he effectively held off both Perry and Rick Santorum when each of them tried to seize control of the microphone from him. All the while, Romney was better than the others on stage at periodically returning to a central theme: getting America growing again.

David Gergen

Perry won top honors Tuesday night as the most improved debater. As John King commented afterward on CNN, another stumbling performance might have knocked him out of contention -- but Perry was far better prepared and energetic.

This may be a singular view, but Cain struck me as having one of his weaker nights. As all of his rivals jumped on his tax plan, his defenses seemed only to leave a haze of confusion and uncertainty. Public support for his tax plan probably peaked Tuesday night and with that, his prospects seem even more problematic.

Fiery GOP debate in Las Vegas

One other candidate deserves honorable mention: Michelle Bachmann. Her heartfelt support for women threatened with home foreclosure was far and away the most emotionally connective statement of the evening. Why can't more of these candidates show greater empathy toward people who are hurting in this economy? (By contrast, Romney had his worst moment when he seemed cold toward those in foreclosure troubles.)

But for those who watched this debate, what stood out more than the performance of any single candidate was the continual outbreak of fights and personal insults. Democrats are used to brawls, but not Republicans. Long ago, as Gloria Borger pointed out after the debate, Ronald Reagan often invoked what he called the 11th Commandment for the GOP: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.

The candidates trampled all over that commandment Tuesday night. GOP leaders must have been horrified. Who can remember a debate when a Republican front-runner like Romney has been called a liar at least three times in a party debate? When Reagan ran in 1980, he and George H.W. Bush clashed hard over issues, but it was never personal -- and when it was over, Reagan tapped Bush as his running mate. Can anyone imagine Romney tapping Perry? If there is still a Republican establishment, its members ought to call the candidates and tell them to cool it. Call No. 1 should go to Santorum: For a man so far down in the polls to continue launching personal attacks against the party front-runner is both egotistical and self-indulgent.

All in all, another strong night for Mitt Romney. But those chuckles you hear are coming from Obama headquarters.

GOP debate: Time to address Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-18T15:41:00.002-04:00

By David Gergen and Mike Zuckerman

October 18, 2011 -- Updated 1912 GMT (0312 HKT)

Occupy Wall Street participants stage a protest on Times Square in New York on October 15.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Writers: GOP has ignored Occupy Wall St so far, but it has to tackle those issues
Democrats have taken on the populist notion of income inequality, they say
Americans getting more angry with huge gap between the top 1% versus the 99%, they say
Writers: GOP must address inequality, face reality that rising tide no longer lifts all boats

(CNN) -- As GOP presidential candidates gather in Las Vegas Tuesday night for another key debate, pressure is mounting on them to address spreading public protests against Wall Street. How they answer could shape the political landscape from here to the November elections.

Republicans haven't had to pay much attention to Occupy Wall Street till now -- they could afford to sniff that the crowds in Zuccotti Park looked more like Woodstock than Wall Street. But as demonstrations have sprung up across the U.S. and Europe, reverberating through social media and gaining more serious attention from mainstream media, politicians must pay more attention.

President Obama and fellow Democrats have already leapt to the support of protesters. The cries of frustration and anger from the streets dovetail perfectly with the president's own shift leftward, populist stance, efforts to blame the rich for America's economic woes, and demands that they pay higher taxes. So perfect is the fit that some conservatives suspect that Democratic partisans are quietly fueling the protests.

There are legitimate questions as to whether the president is ill serving the national interest by whipping up antagonism toward the wealthy, especially the financial services industry. Until recently, many influential Democrats (such as Sen. Chuck Schumer) joined Republicans in believing that Wall Street, serving as the financial capital of the world, was one of the nation's top assets. Yes, it became too greedy and reckless and needed tougher government scrutiny, but its vitality should be preserved.

Soon after taking office, Obama summoned bankers and told them he was all that was standing between them and people with pitchforks. Today, many in New York believe the president has now taken up a pitchfork himself. What impact this alienation will have on voting behavior remains uncertain, but clearly, the president and his team believe it will help them in 2012. What better way to change the storyline for the elections?

That raises the question: How will Republicans rise to the challenge? How will they frame the argument about the protesters and their underlying issues? Some in the GOP hope the protesters will disappear with the first frost, taking the controversy with them. Perhaps that will happen: They are not as well-organized nor do they have as clear an agenda as the tea partiers, so they may not be able to sustain themselves.

Even if the protesters melt away, however, it appears they have already achieved an important goal: They have put income inequality on the national agenda. Yawning gaps between the top 1% versus the other 99% have been simmering as a political issue for a long time, stretching back before the Great Recession. But most middle-class Americans haven't seriously objected, whether because their sense of their current income was skewed, or because they expected they'd strike it rich one day themselves. (One poll from 2000 showed that no less than 19% considered themselves in the top 1% -- and another 20% on top of that expected they would be soon.)

All that has changed now. Most Americans feel stuck, they think their kids will be worse off than they are, and they are increasingly angry. A Time magazine poll this week found that by 54% to 23%, the public approves of protests on Wall Street and beyond; by contrast, opinion about the tea party now runs 33% negative versus 27% positive. So the GOP likely can't duck addressing inequality.

Newt Gingrich last week voiced sympathy for those protesting who are truly suffering. But one would think that GOP candidates would go well beyond and frankly recognize, as Alan Greenspan and some other Republicans have, that massive inequality and a lack of upward mobility are destructive to a democracy. Perhaps they don't agree, but if so, they are living in a darker past than we all thought.

The evidence of yawning inequalities is now plentiful. Here are just a few factoids:

-- Between 1977 and 2007, the top 1% earners' share of national income jumped from roughly 9% to 23.5%, a level only bested once in our history -- in 1928.

-- The CEO-to-worker pay ratio has also skyrocketed: At the start of the 1980s, CEOs made roughly 40 times as much as bottom-rung workers; by 2010, they took home between 300 and 400 times as much.

-- The divergence is even greater among the super-rich: The top 0.1% (roughly 150,000 families) now make roughly 10% of the nation's total income -- so they're pulling away even from the rest of the rich themselves.

These stats are jarring, but they're not enough. If poor Americans had a nickel for every statistic that's been trotted out to diagnose the issue in the past year, we wouldn't have to worry about income inequality anymore. The hard question -- now put to the Republican free marketers, who have owned the political dialogue of late -- is what to do to narrow the inequality gap.

Presumably -- and this is a logical position -- Republican candidates would oppose lowering the ceiling on the rich, preferring to lift the floor for everyone else. But that is easier said than done. First of all, even our most optimistic economists are not projecting anything above fairly modest growth over the next few years -- no game changers there.

But moreover, to fall back on the single mantra of more growth as the elixir simply doesn't hack it anymore: In the new normal, a rising tide doesn't lift all boats. With massive structural changes like globalization and technology reorienting the economy, many -- particularly in rich, developed countries like our own -- find themselves mired in the mud, while others have super-duper motors that let them run off into the sunset.

So, what's a good Republican to do to lift floors? Heaven forbid, some forms of government intervention may actually be necessary. That's, at least, what Ronald Reagan concluded. He became a champion of an earned income tax credit, helping to raise the income of people willing to work for meager wages. Bill Clinton expanded the Reagan program and it proved a powerful tool in closing the inequality gap in the mid-90s. If Reagan and Clinton could agree on a successful tactic to help more families enter the middle class, can't today's Republicans come up with imaginative new approaches?

The issue, as most of us agree, is not really inequality so much as it is mobility, or opportunity. The vast majority of Americans -- and the presidential hopefuls on stage are certainly among them -- don't want to live in a society where everyone is held equally low; they want to live in a society where everyone has a fair opportunity to climb high.

That's a moral issue as much as economic one, and our political leaders are ultimately judged not just by the way they lift the GDP, but by the way they lift the moral life of their country.

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of the writers.

Bloomberg interview: politics, Occupy Wall Street, inequality

2011-10-18T14:33:00.000-04:00

Audio from an interview Monday on Bloomberg Radio with Ken Prewitt and Tom Keene about the Occupy Wall Street protests, the political landscape, and inequality in America: Bloomberg Radio Interview

Teresa Ulloa Ziáurriz Wins 2011 Gleitsman International Activist Award

2011-10-08T18:48:00.000-04:00

04 OCTOBER 2011

Lifelong advocate for women's rights to receive award at Nov. 1 ceremony

Cambridge, MA—The Center for Public Leadership (CPL) at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) has named human rights activist Teresa Ulloa Ziáurriz this year’s recipient of the Gleitsman International Activist Award for her 40 years of work fighting human trafficking and violence against women. The award and $125,000 prize, bestowed biennially to a leader who has "improved the quality of life in countries and inspired others to do the same," will be presented to Ulloa at a ceremony in Cambridge on Tuesday, November 1st.

A lawyer by training, Ulloa has litigated more than 30,000 rape cases in her career. As regional director of the Coalition Against Trafficking Women’s (CATW) Latin American and Caribbean division, Ulloa created the Red Alert System in Mexico in 2006. Coordinating the work of government agencies, prosecutors' offices and police departments, this system has been responsible for rescuing nearly 700 women and children from the snares of sex traffickers.

Before joining CATW, Ulloa founded two legal collectives, Compañera and Defensoras Populares, A.C.; as the general coordinator of this second group, Ulloa helped exonerate 150 Mexican women who were unjustly accused of crimes. But her efforts have not been confined to the legal system: Ulloa also developed a training program designed to reduce the demand for commercial sex that targets young males. The first of its kind, this program promotes an alternative conception of male sexuality based on gender equality; nine countries throughout Central and South America have adopted the model.

"I am honored to be chosen for such a prestigious award," said Ulloa. "Most important, I hope that this award shines a light on the countless women of Central and South America who find themselves trapped in detestable situations. Our work may never end, but for my daughter’s sake—and the sake of all daughters, wives, and mothers everywhere—I will continue this fight and remain grateful for this wonderful recognition."

Casey Otis-Cote, associate director of CPL's Gleitsman Program in Leadership for Social Change, added: "For decades Teresa Ulloa Ziáurriz has been the tireless voice and advocate that women throughout Central and South America have relied on. Her diversified approach to women's rights—using legal, political, and educational means—exemplifies the leaders of social change that this award was intended to honor."

Information about additional conversations and gatherings related to Ulloa's work will be announced in the coming weeks.

###

About the Gleitsman Citizen Activist Award
The Gleitsman International Activist Award was created in 1993 by the late Alan Gleitsman to honor leadership in social activism that has improved the quality of life in countries and inspired others to do the same. It is given biennially and includes a $125,000 prize. Past honorees include: Nelson Mandela, Muhammad Yunus, activists such as Dr. Sakena Yacoobi, founder of the Afghan Institute of Learning and, most recently, Karen Tse, founder and CEO of International Bridges to Justice.

About the Center for Public Leadership
Established through a generous gift from the Wexner Foundation, the Center for Public Leadership advances the frontiers of knowledge about leadership through research and teaching, and deepens the pool of leaders for the common good through cocurricular activities that include skill-building workshops, fellowships, and programming in leadership for social change. More information is available at: www.hks.harvard.edu/leadership

Is Obama's re-election bid a hostage to Europe?

2011-10-08T13:06:00.000-04:00

By David Gergen and Michael Zuckerman

updated 9:49 AM EST, Thu October 6, 2011

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

A rush of recent events is reshaping the 2012 presidential campaign
Authors say the more important factor may be the crisis in Europe
If Europe triggers a second dip in the economy, voters will blame President Obama, they say
Authors: President has little control over his fate if Europe crisis gets worse

(CNN) -- Even as events here in the United States are reshaping the political landscape for the 2012 presidential elections, it has become blazingly clear that what is happening in Europe may actually prove more decisive.

Domestically, there has been a rat-a-tat of events that are raising the odds of Mitt Romney's winning the GOP nomination. Rick Perry's prospects have tumbled repeatedly in recent weeks, with weak debate performances, flagging poll numbers, and, most recently, the revelation by The Washington Post of a racial slur at the gates of a Perry family hunting lodge in West Texas.

The damage from the debates and poll numbers are reversible, but the ranch story may yet leave a more lasting imprint -- and it may give the press more incentive to dig into his Texas past. He may yet emerge intact from that, too, but intense scrutiny can place a candidate in harsh, cruel light. As Robert Penn Warren's Willie Stark insists in "All the King's Men": "There is always something."

As Perry's star fades, it has become even more apparent that he has done a couple of major favors for Romney. First off, Romney is no longer on cruise control -- he is trying harder in his public performances and connecting better. Moreover, coming from Romney's right flank, Perry has made the former Massachusetts governor seem more mainstream. That alone may not win over many delegates at a convention, but it will make Romney seem more electable as time goes on.

The other key domestic event, of course, was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's decision not to run. Christie's opt-out not only spared Romney a tough rival with crossover appeal but has also set the field, unlocking many GOP donors still waiting in the wings (several of whom already seem to have come on board to Romney).

Combined with Perry's troubles and flagging polls, we are seemingly back where we started with this race for the GOP nomination: There's Romney and there's everybody else.

All of this is important in shaping the GOP landscape but, in terms of fall 2012, what happens over the next few months in Europe may have an even greater bearing on the outcome.

Since even before James Carville's famous dictum, it's become accepted wisdom that the economy plays a commanding role in the outcome of elections. But, as The Washington Post's Ezra Klein, among others, has recently argued, what's most striking about the current situation is how little power we in America may even have over the course our economy takes in the next 13 months.

As Klein points out, Greece stands on the brink of default -- with Ireland, Portugal, and perhaps even Spain and Italy poised to follow them into the abyss. If the European financial powers, chiefly Angela Merkel's Germany, do not step in to avoid catastrophe, the ensuing collapse would not only swallow the European economy, but ours along with it. Europe is too big an economy and too intertwined a trading partner for us to escape the fallout if they fail.

This Damoclean sword hangs over the country and the Obama presidency in an economic landscape that, even taken in isolation, looks nowhere near rosy. Even if Europe stays afloat, many forecasters -- among them Goldman Sachs, Moody's, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch -- still believe the economy may droop dangerously close to recession in the year ahead.

Coupled with the threat of a widening euro debt crisis, President Barack Obama's prospects look daunting indeed. Fair or not, leaders own the economies they preside over. And while it is easy to call the first plunge a George W. Bush recession, history suggests that, in voters' eyes at least, a second dip would belong chiefly to Obama.

The danger from Europe, of course, is no reason to accept further inaction here at home. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's testimony on Capitol Hill on Tuesday underscored the ongoing frustration with Congress for political gridlock in the face of such serious challenges. On the recent protests on Wall Street, even the staid Bernanke noted they represent a citizenry increasingly "dissatisfied with the policy response in Washington." He continued: "At some level, I can't blame them."

But Bernanke struck a more forlorn note when he faced questions on Europe. The Fed, he answered, was powerless in the face of the widening crisis and the American people, unfortunately, "innocent bystanders" to whatever transpires.

So, too, perhaps, the president's re-election prospects. There is time yet for a turnaround, and hope that the Europeans will summon the political courage -- so sharply lacking stateside -- to do what is necessary. If they don't, we may instead see a stunning irony unfold: a president whose critics tirelessly paint him as seeking to Europeanize America, undone by the very continent he supposedly admires so much.

Is America becoming a house divided against itself?

2011-09-28T10:03:00.000-04:00

By David Gergen and Michael Zuckerman

updated 9:28 AM EST, Wed September 28, 2011

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Authors: Americans bear responsibility for broken government
Studies show that the moderate center is being hollowed out, they say
Ties that bound communities together are eroding, authors say
Gergen, Zuckerman: There's hope that a new generation could reverse the trend

Editor's note: This is one of a series of CNN Opinion articles on the question: "Why is our government so broken?" David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter: @David_Gergen. Michael Zuckerman, who graduated from Harvard College in 2010, is David Gergen's assistant.

Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- When trouble strikes in our personal lives and we are searching for a source, it usually makes sense to take a look in a familiar place -- the mirror. And so it should be in our troubled politics today.

Many of us are deeply angry at politicians in Washington and the broken government they have created. We tend to look down upon them as jackasses and ideologues who are incapable of organizing a two-car funeral. We blame special interests for capturing them, a 24/7 media for encouraging them, and power for corrupting them. Indeed, a list of reasons for broken government could -- and will -- fill a week of columns.

But perhaps we give too little attention to the basic notion that our politicians are also a reflection of the public they represent. As the old saying goes, we get the president we deserve -- and usually the Congress, too. In truth, our fractured politics are due in no small part to a fractured country -- one in which consensus and moderation are disappearing. With apologies to President Truman: the buck stops here.

David Gergen

Those of us who are older -- born somewhere close to midcentury -- grew up in an America where there was a general consensus that the United States was a great nation, that you could be a success if you worked hard and played by the rules, that government had a positive role to play when trouble hit, and that politics must stop at the water's edge as we united against dangerous enemies. But with Vietnam, the tumult of the '60s and '70s, Watergate and more, our sense of common purpose began collapsing.

Listen for a moment to three of the smartest observers in the country who have weighed in this week on the collapse. In this week's New York Magazine, columnist Frank Rich argues that by the late 1960s, "the bipartisan national consensus over the central role of government -- which had held firm through the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations -- was kaput. The Reagan revolution was in the wings."

We also began to lose faith in ourselves and our values. In an interview with the Financial Times early this week, Professor Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School chimed in with pained observations about what is happening to American competitiveness: "This is shocking for the U.S. If you go back 100 years, you find that the U.S. was a huge pioneer in public education. ... The U.S. was a real pioneer in creating a national, very deep university system. ... The U.S. was a pioneer in the interstate highway system. ... We stepped to the plate in the past and made very, very bold investments in the fundamental environment for competitiveness. But right now, we can't seem to agree on any of these things."

Or listen to William Galston, who was instrumental in helping President Clinton bridge the divides in politics. In the New Republic, he argues that the middle is shrinking in politics. In 1992, he points out, Gallup found that 43% of respondents identified themselves as moderates, 37% as conservatives, and 17% as liberals. In 2009, conservatives and liberals were each up 4% and moderates were down by 7%.

Granderson: Broken gov't? Blame voters

How to fix a broken government

David Frum: Why is government so broken?

Similarly, a study of national election data by Alan Abramovitz found that in 1984, some 41% identified themselves at the midpoint of an ideological scale versus 10% who placed themselves at liberal or conservative extremes. By 2005, the number who identified themselves at the center had dropped to only 28%, while the number at the endpoints had risen to 23%.

We continue to hear that even so, independents have the whip hand in electoral politics and we tend to assume that they are middling in their views, open to argument, and rather homogeneous. But even these assumptions seem doubtful. Frank Rich, for example, highlights a recent Pew survey that suggests that nearly half of independents are actually Democrats (21%) or Republicans (26%) who just shy away from the label, while another 20% are more populist, skeptical Democrats ("Doubting Dems"), 16% are "disaffected" voters with a highly negative view of government, and 17% are "disengaged" altogether. Not exactly a portrait of moderate unity.

Surely there are many sources of the fractures in today's electorate, just as there are many social scientists more qualified to take a crack at explaining them. But one potential contributing factor comes from a fascinating piece in National Affairs by Marc Dunkelman, who fears the winnowing out of so-called "middle-tier relationships" for the American citizen.

These relationships have long been, as Dunkelman puts it, "at the root of American community life," and encompass such different-minded acquaintances as "bridge partners, brothers in the Elks club, fellow members of the PTA." But these connections have withered in recent years, even as we stay close to those like-minded folks who inhabit our inner circles of friends and family, and are connected on an unprecedented scale by technology and social media to those farther away. Without these vibrant, heterogeneous "middle-tier" relationships, Dunkelman argues, it may simply be much harder to build the sense of public trust and unity that allows people to stand up to big challenges together.

The good news is that, as with any self-inflicted wound, the power is in our hands to change course. And indeed there is a growing sense in the country that people are finally getting tired of this particularly rancid level of divisiveness. There is a generation rising -- singled out in a recent TIME Magazine cover story as "The Next Greatest Generation" -- that, led by its young military veterans, is eager to put aside partisan squabbles to get things done.

The bipartisan group No Labels recently convened a conference call with Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz that they reported drew more than 100,000 participants. And even in Washington itself, Lamar Alexander, a senior Republican senator, recently quit his leadership post so he could devote more time to forging consensus and working across the aisle.

So there is cause for hope. In the meantime, it is up to us to continue to hold those in the halls of power accountable for results and not just party orthodoxy, and to expose ourselves to people outside our handpicked inner sanctums, ideas and opinions outside our own ideologies, and even news sources different from our favorites (unless you're a regular CNN viewer, of course).

Politics in this country has always been rough-and-tumble, and so it should be. But as no less a patriot than former Secretary Bob Gates reminded us last Thursday while accepting the Liberty Medal at the National Constitution Center, "The warning given a long time ago by Benjamin Franklin still applies: 'Either we hang together or we will surely all hang separately." That advice likewise applies as much to our representatives in government as it does to those to whom the founders truly entrusted the reins of power -- us.

2011-09-28T09:58:00.000-04:00

Great fun from Anderson Cooper and the gang at AC360 Monday night. This whole Clooney thing has been a hoot, and deep thanks to so many for all the kind words and hearty laughs. And I've told Anderson that I plan to get even one day!

What Drives George Clooney

2011-09-27T13:07:00.001-04:00

Photo by Sam Jones

Outside the gates of his 18th-century villa, paparazzi wait, ready to pounce. Tour boats pause as passengers snap photos. But inside, dressed in cutoffs and a T-shirt, George Clooney is relaxed and unfazed. Each summer, he retreats to this 13-bedroom piece of paradise, nestled beside Lake Como in the foothills of the Italian Alps. He has a studio here where he writes and edits his films, but mostly he loves to entertain friends. Clooney’s closest buddies stretch back to before he was a star, and they come year after year for conversation, lingering meals, wine, and the freedom to let go.

In August, Clooney opened his doors to PARADE for an interview. The other guests that weekend included a human rights activist who has traveled with him to Africa and an L.A. pal of long standing. No girlfriend, no Hollywood. My tally for two days: 10 hours of sleep, 20 hours of talk, one nasty hangover, nonstop fun. Clooney, it turns out, is a master host.

Likewise, he’s an engaging interview on a wide range of topics, starting with his new movie The Ides of March, a taut political drama about loyalty and betrayal, sex and power (in theaters Oct. 7). Clooney cowrote and directed the film, in which he plays an inspirational presidential candidate whose flaws—and reluctance to compromise—may bring him down; Ryan Gosling costars as the candidate’s idealistic press secretary.

Clooney also delved into more personal areas: turning 50, his work in South Sudan, the roles that luck and confidence can play in life. Serious but quick to laugh, he seems to be in the midst of a life transition, aiming to move from success to lasting significance. It is easy to see why he has great friends—and why they always come back.

PARADE: The Ides of March, which is based on a play called Farragut North, is a cracking good story. It’s also quite dark.
It’s the disappointment in the taking away of a dream. Ryan Gosling’s character goes through a really insane week, and you watch how quickly good ideas can be dashed on the rocks. I’ve seen that happen in my industry.

Good people get caught in bad systems. And there’s a lot of ambiguity.
I’m at a point where I can make films that ask questions and don’t necessarily supply answers—because I don’t know what the answers are. I don’t know if winning at any cost is wrong or not. There are times I’ve thought that the end justified the means.

There’s a scene late in the film between the candidate and his press secretary that has a very sinister quality.
Grant [Heslov, one of Clooney’s cowriters] and I sort of structured the movie around that scene. We were interested in taking two smart men who are very good at what they do, putting their livelihoods in jeopardy, and sticking them in a room to watch them play the most cutthroat game possible. That’s a scene where nobody wins. I really liked the idea of that.

You know, we were in preproduction on this film in 2007, before the Obama election. And then we realized that a good portion of the country was elated with what happened in that election, so we had to shelve the movie until people were cynical again. I didn’t think it would be quite this quick. [laughs]

Your father, Nick Clooney, ran unsuccessfully for Congress from Kentucky in 2004. Did his experience inform your film at all?
There’s a scene I have with my character’s wife that I sort of took directly from my father’s experience. We’re in the car and she asks if I’m going to take this senator on [offer him a position in return for his endorsement]. And I say, “I wasn’t going to do any of this. I wasn’t going to make union deals, I wasn’t going to run negative ads. I can’t on this one; I have to draw the line somewhere.” I remember my father saying, “I’m going to have to go out and shake hands with people I wouldn’t normally shake hands with [to raise funds],” and it killed him to do that. It’s soul-stealing. So I thought that was an interesting thing to talk about in this film—how nobody gets in without some dealings they wouldn’t normally do. Nobody.

This fall, you’re starring in another film, The Descendants. But do you see yourself more as a director now?
Directing is much more satisfying to me than acting. You know, I turned 50 [in May], and I look at myself on-screen and go, “I don’t look like I did when I was 40—I know that.” The people I’ve respected most in the industry over the years—Paul Newman, for instance. I just loved the way he handled growing old on-screen. It’s understanding that you’re now basically a character actor. Which is fine, but you have to pay attention to it.

It’s like William Holden says in Network: “It’s all suddenly closer to the end than to the beginning, and death is suddenly a perceptible thing to me, with definable features.” I love that line!

One theme I see in your life—not only in the way you live but also in the way you direct—is that you try to keep things simple.
I find that as you get older, you start to simplify things in general. By the time you get a subscription toAARP, which I just got, you have some idea of who your friends are, at least.

Was getting the AARP magazine a surprise?
It shocked me—“Are you kidding?” [laughs] I told them they should do “The Sexiest Man Still Alive.”

How do you continue your public life and maintain privacy?
I don’t tweet, I don’t go on Facebook. I think there’s too much information about all of us out there. I’m liking the idea of privacy more and more. There will be funny things, like I’ll read something I’ve said about a woman somewhere. And I haven’t spoken about my relationships in 15 years. It will be something I said years ago, and they’re still using it.

How did you come to buy this villa?
I was riding a motorcycle through the Alps [in June 2001], and my bike broke down. I knocked on this door, and they were nice enough to help out. The Heinz family owned it and offered to sell it to me. I said, “You think I have more money than I have.” [laughs]

I bought it as an investment. I never liked the stock market—to me it’s Vegas without any of the fun parts, the girls in bikinis. I like owning dirt. You know, I spent a lot of time broke when I moved to California. So deep in my soul is still this idea of being un-employed. To me, owning land means you could sell it at some point and have money.

But you also really like spending time here.
I love the way life is spent in Italy. It’s really nice to sit down and have a two-hour lunch, which the Italians do. I realized that I had spent probably 15, 20 years standing up and shoveling food down my throat. It’s not about wealth; it’s about taking time and actually enjoying things. All of my friends think of this as their home. They come even when I’m not here. [laughs] There’s nothing that makes me prouder than this group of friends I’ve managed to stay very close to for a long, long time.

Do you find yourself thinking about what your legacy will be?
I’m the first person to say that it’s all luck that I’m in a position where I get to pick what I want to do. But if you’re in that position, it’s your responsibility to pick projects that will last longer than an opening weekend, that you can look at in a couple of years and go, “Oh, that’s interesting.”

I’m also spending time working on the issues in South Sudan. Maybe there’s some of this fame spotlight I’ve got that I can use elsewhere. My days are filled doing a lot of emailing and coaxing. I find it’s liberating to do those kinds of things and not have to worry about my career anymore.

You’ve traveled a number of times to Africa, especially to Sudan, drawing attention to conditions there after decades of civil war. You also put a spotlight on the successful referendum earlier this year for South Sudan to become a state independent from Sudan. What prompted you to make this your cause?
Two million people were killed in the north-south war in Sudan before 2005. I wasn’t going to stand on the sidelines and not participate. We [Clooney has traveled with organizations including the International Rescue Committee and the Enough Project] went there four times, got the Newsweek cover [Feb. 28, 2011]. I set up this satellite system on the border of Abyei, and we’ve had incredible success in photographing mass atrocities. The idea is, we’re just going to keep the pressure on. Turning the lights on doesn’t mean anything stops. But it makes it harder, and that’s our job.

Going there has been dangerous for you, hasn’t it?
There were times when it was hairy.

Didn’t a 12-year-old kid put a gun to your head?
It was up against my throat. David Pressman [a human rights lawyer, now the director for War Crimes and Atrocities on the National -Security Council] just grabbed the gun barrel and pushed it away, saying, “Don’t do that.” He treated him like a 12-year-old, and that was that.

You also picked up malaria.
Yeah, that was on the first trip [which Clooney took with his father in April 2006]. That was a fun flight home. I think they had to hazmat the whole plane.

You’ve talked about how lucky you are. What have you learned from your failures?
It’s hard when you get thumped. I’ve been proficient at failure. But the only thing you can do is say, “Here’s what I won’t do next time.”

I was a baseball player in school. I had a good arm, I could catch anything, but I was having trouble hitting. I would be like, “I wonder if I’ll hit it; just let me hit the ball.” And then I went away for the fall, learned how to hit, and by my sophomore year I’d come to the plate and think, “I wonder where I want to hit the ball, to the left or right?” Just that little bit of skill and confidence changed everything. Well, I had to treat acting like that. I had to stop going to auditions thinking, “Oh, I hope they like me.” I had to go in thinking I was the answer to their problem. You could feel the difference in the room immediately.

The greatest lesson I learned was that sometimes you have to fake it. And you have to be willing to fail.

- David Gergen for Parade magazine

David Gergen Reflects on His Candid Conversation With George Clooney

2011-09-27T12:37:00.000-04:00

As the gates opened into George Clooney's place along Lake Como in Italy, I was apprehensive and wondered how the next two days would be. What I found was both a surprise and a delight.

Some weeks before, editors at PARADE had called to ask if I would be interested in interviewing Clooney in advance of his fall political drama. "Sure," I said, "I don't know him at all, but it sounds like a hoot." Wheels were soon in motion, as he and his team said yes. We couldn't work out a date in L.A. and out of nowhere, he invited me to come spend a weekend with him at his 18th century villa in Italy; we could do the interview there. I said yes in a nano-second: what an adventure!

Still, I harbored concerns. As I mentioned the upcoming trip to a few friends, each one knew a great deal more about his life than I did — how he grew up in Kentucky, how he started out as a jock but made his way to Hollywood on a dime, how his aunt Rosemary took him under her wing. For years he toiled with different TV series but then had a breakthrough with ER, and that catapulted him into the big time. One film success followed another, as did one girlfriend after another. Now he was a superstar, who was not only acting but producing and, more to the point, directing films. And he had become devoted to helping the utterly helpless in Sudan.

That was the arc of his outer life, I came to see, but who was he inside? What kind of person was he? I couldn't be sure from the interviews and profiles that I devoured. They seemed to trail off about four years ago as he made himself less available to the press, struggling to maintain his privacy.

Hollywood is not my natural habitat. I have known several actors and directors over the years but have found it hard to generalize about them. One of them was Ronald Reagan, whom I worked for in the White House, and while he was a good deal more conservative than I am, I found him to be one of the best leaders I have ever known. A few others from Hollywood also impressed, but — as in politics — there were a disproportionate number of egomaniacs and phonies.

Before my trip, Sony had allowed me to preview his new film, The Ides of March (opening October 7). I found it riveting. It's a political drama but could have just as easily been set in corporate America, as it explores the tensions between loyalty and betrayal, sex and power. Clooney co-wrote, acted and directed. Sometime soon, I hope to show it to students at the Harvard Kennedy School (my day job), as it will spark good conversation.

Still, it didn't tell me what I really wanted to know: who is George Clooney when the cameras stop? What makes him tick? And, by the way, would I be able to keep my eyes open? This was my third trip across the Atlantic in the space of a short time, and as I landed in Milan, I was beat. Would I be a total bore? Would he look upon my presence as a total pain-in-the-ass?

He had sent his driver to fetch me, and we zoomed off on the 45-minute drive toward his villa. A narrow road winds up from the town, along the lake, homes and shops pressing in from each side, and then suddenly a gate appeared. We slipped in and down the short drive to his home. It was just after 9 a.m.

To my surprise, he was waiting there alone, reading and sipping a cup of coffee, dressed in a gray T-shirt and cut offs. He offered to make coffee, and went off to fetch a cappuccino. Then we sat outside in a brilliant sun and talked for a steady hour, chatting about this and that, starting to exchange funny stories, laughing. He was setting the tone for the weekend.

"You must want some sleep," he said, and escorted me upstairs to a bedroom suite. "You can stay here. Hope it has everything you need. When you hear a bell ringing, you will know it is time for lunch out by the pool. I hope to see you then." And he disappeared.

There were three waiting as lunch began, all casually dressed — Clooney, his friend David Pressman (a human rights lawyer, now the director for War Crimes and Atrocities on the National Security Council, who first brought Clooney to Sudan and has accompanied him on several successive missions overseas since), along with a friend of David's. The next day, another old friend of Clooney's, a lawyer from L.A., arrived.

At that first lunch, I proposed that only when we sat down for the interview Sunday afternoon, with my tape recorder (if I could get it to work), would conversations be on the record. Everything else was off the record unless permission was granted. Everyone agreed — no one wanted to be on guard for 48 hours.

We were a small crew for the weekend — no Clooney girlfriends, no Hollywood — and together we had some of the most spirited times in memory. From start to finish, Clooney was relaxed, thoughtful, open, sometimes playful — and always generous. He was, I discovered, a master host. Our conversations ranged from film to politics, directing to acting, family to friends, the deterioration of civility in the U.S. to his hopes for Sudan. Every few moments would be punctuated by a funny story, a mischievous aside. His dad came out of radio, he explained in our interview, and taught him the importance of telling stories that were amusing...and also had a point. He always tried to keep the conversation bubbling, never boring — and as a guest, you tried to do the same.

As we talked and then sat down with the tape running, three strong impressions emerged for me.

Clooney appears, to me at least, to be a man undergoing a life transition. His 50th birthday got his attention, especially when AARP sent him a magazine and asked him to join up. "It shocked the s--- out of me," he said in our interview. You look at that, and say okay, I have got to get going, I've got stuff I've gotta do.

Central to his transition is his approach to films. Having made it to superstardom, he feels incredibly liberated to do more of what he wants, no longer having to worry so much about career. He wants to move gradually from acting to directing, and he wants to make significant films that will last. Sure, he will occasionally play in a big film for fun, and, recognizing that films are entertainment, he will always include humor in his own productions. But he isn't as interested anymore in making a big splash at the weekend box office; rather, he wants films that will be remembered years later. The best way to go is probably through a low budget, as studios are more willing to take a chance. At a time when a box-office smash can cost some $200-300 million or so, he notes that Up in the Air was a $22 million film and The Ides of March cost about $12 million. Films like that, he thinks, may not always hit, but they often hold up.

Getting older has also prompted him, as it has others, to look toward the essence of things. Stop living with the noise in the margins and focus on what matters. Learn to simplify.

Whether and how the sense that Clooney is "going through an interesting journey" will change his personal life is unclear. Since his marriage to Talia Balsam ended, there has been a stream of gorgeous-looking girlfriends. Paparazzi are constantly snapping pictures, people gossip, but he hasn't talked to the press about his relationships for 15 years. And he didn't start now. But I came away wondering if one day sooner than later, he might seek a lasting relationship.

A second strong impression that emerged is that George Clooney is a more serious man than I ever imagined. Just for starters, he is serious about what films should be. Covering ground we had plowed more than once over the weekend, he explained what everyone (except me) seems to know — that 1939 was the vintage year of American filmmaking: Citizen Kane, The Grapes of Wrath (filmed in '39), The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gone with the Wind are all products of that year.

But Clooney has a special fascination with a more recent era: 1965-1975. "You can go through the list of Mike Nichols, Hal Ashby, Coppola, Scorsese — you go down the list of these insanely talented filmmakers all working at the top of their game and somehow kind of competing with each other. Pakula, Lumet, I mean, you can just keep going down the list of these guys. And they were all doing really interesting films," he said.

Recently Clooney decided to give his friends a set of the best films of that decade. As he studied the list, he realized that "1964 was Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe. And 1976 was All the President's Men, Network, Taxi Driver, Bound for Glory — just, you know, brilliant films...films that were really changing the face of filmmaking. And they hold up when you see them. So I gave all my friends for Christmas the 100 best films between 1964 and '76." (See the list here).

"In general, I fell in love with that kind of filmmaking. That era was a reflection of the antiwar movement, of the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, the sexual revolution, the drug counterculture. All those things were exploding at the same time. And these films were reflections of it. They weren't leading the way; films never lead the way 'cause it takes too long to make them... But it's interesting because they show a period of time. I think we're in an interesting period in our country's history right now. We're very polarized... it's frustrating."

"So," I ask, "these are times that cry out for important films, significant films that capture..."

"I find for me that's what I want to do..." Any movie he makes now: "You know, it had better be worth your time."

Clooney is equally serious about his efforts in Sudan. When he first went, he decided to take his dad, a major television presence in the southern Ohio-Kentucky border area who was down after losing a Congressional election in 2004. David Pressman, then working for a non-profit, was to take them.

Shortly before they were to leave, the State Department issued an advisory against civilian travel to the area. They went anyway and, while there, Clooney had a harrowing experience — a 12-year-old boy put a rifle to his neck and threatened to blow his head off. Pressman suddenly saw what was happening, strode over, and brushed the gun back.

Clooney talks of the moment to this day. And he has returned repeatedly to the problems of Sudan, recognizing that by his very presence, he can attract cameras that will show the world how innocents are being slaughtered and bring progress. Some believe that Clooney deserves part of the credit for South Sudan's recent partition as an independent country from the north.

Clooney points out that a number of his friends in Hollywood are trying to make a difference in tough hotspots — Sean Penn went and lived in Haiti for a year; Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have been to places like Pakistan; Pitt also worked hard to begin rebuilding New Orleans; Matt Damon has been engaged in clean water; Don Cheadle has done with in Sudan, Ben Affleck in the Congo. Clooney can talk in depth about each. But it's hard to point to anyone who has had greater continuity and seriousness of purpose: Even with the creation of a border in Sudan, Clooney, working with partners like Harvard, has helped to put a satellite in place that can provide graphic evidence to the world of continued violence and help to contain it.

Not surprisingly, David Pressman has joined Clooney's list of close personal friends. What is notable, however, is that Pressman is one of the few of recent vintage. The circle that he speaks about with great fondness mostly dates back to the days before he became a superstar, when, during his broke early days in Hollywood, he formed bonds with a number of people who remain close to this day. I have found in politics that you can trust a politician more if he has friends who date back a long way, pre-fame; that means he can form and keep relationships of trust with people who aren't looking for anything. If all of his friends have come since fame or fortune, watch out. I can only imagine that is even more true in Hollywood.

Clooney, to his credit, has maintained a circle, and several of them come to see him at Lake Como year after year. "Honestly," he says, "there is nothing that makes me more proud, there's nothing I have accomplished better in my life than this group of friends. We've managed to stay very close for a long, long time."

Fortunately for his friends, Clooney hasn't lost any of his playfulness as he has climbed the slippery ladder of success. If anything, it may have grown so that every conversation has funny tales of the past and spicy notes about today. Sitting by the lake, wine glass in hand, he loves to regale visitors with tales of pranks he has played — and those in which he has been cleverly targeted by others.

One of his favorites from his days at the villa arose from the time some years ago when Walter Cronkite was a guest for the first time. At the end of his maiden lunch, where people were casually dressed, Cronkite asked Clooney what the dress code was for dinner (I asked the same thing... who can be sure in these situations?)

"Oh, Walter," Clooney told him, "we always dress in black tie for our dinners here." This being Hollywood, Cronkite had brought a tux and when the dinner bell rang that night, he dutifully showed up in all his studs. There awaiting him at the table were all of the other guests, all dressed in bath robes. "Damn you," Cronkite said, and stomped off back to his room to take off his tux. A little while later, Cronkite returned, dressed in his bath robe. And there, of course, Clooney had ensured that every guest would now be dressed in tuxedoes and gowns. Cronkite let off a string of expletives — but they had a grand dinner. (Nick Clooney, George's dad, was there for that visit, and over the years, he and Cronkite developed ties so close that the family asked Nick to give a eulogy at Cronkite's memorial service. Many thought it was the best given.)

So it went all weekend. There were somber moments when we were talking about the tragedies that have befallen Sudan and his desire for a legacy of helping; five minutes later, I felt like I was on the set of Ocean's Eleven. Early that Sunday evening, he took the five of us out on his boat for a cruise along the lake. A paparazzi boat immediately tailed us and swung around in circles. Clooney stopped in middle and brought out champagne and cheese; eventually he persuaded the paparazzi to leave, and as night fell, we enjoyed a long, quiet conversation looking out over one of the world's most beautiful scenes.

Coming in, we sat outside under the stars for dinner. It was pizza night and a couple offered up an eight-course meal, pizzas coming straight out of an indoor oven, each covered with fresh vegetables from the garden. Wine and talk both flowed copiously.

I lost track of time, but by 2 a.m. or so — when I was hammered and was reasonably certain that others were, too — we had become raucous. Out of nowhere, Clooney jumps out of his chair and starts climbing a fence that overlooks the lake below. From the top, fully clothed, he counted, One... two... and jumped. I heard three just before hit the water. Within seconds, he was challenging our masculinity. Okay, guys, let's see your stuff. One other guest was next up and jumped. Hell, I thought, I have an early morning plane and I don't want wet clothes. So... what choice did I have? I stripped down to my skivvies, climbed that darn fence.... And whoa, it seemed like I was 30 feet above the water. One... two... I was in the water by three. It was very dark, a little cold, but terrific. So we kept jumping.

Eventually we repaired to his kitchen in bathrobes, trying to warm up. Out came a bottle of limoncello, and the conversation flowed on until I finally crawled up to bed at 4:30.

When I left the house — with a nasty hangover — for the airport four hours later, only one other guy was up. I was sorry that I never had a chance to say goodbye, especially to the man who brought us all together. I still wasn't completely sure who he was down deep — just like I couldn't be sure exactly what made some presidents tick — but I did know this: George Clooney is a classy guy and one of the world's best hosts. No wonder his friends return year after year.

More on Parade.com
Clooney Unveils His 100 Favorite Films	George Clooney Reveals His Top Prank of All Time	George Clooney Through the Years