WalkingThinkTank.com
ideas that go places
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2007
Al Gore, Mike Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich may come from
different parts of the political spectrum, but their potential
candidacies all share a common rationale: our political
system is failing to address the enormous challenges we face
as a nation.
Gore has fended off calls to run for president by describing
himself as a “recovering politician,” but that’s exactly why he
should run – as a public service to help our political process
recover and elevate our democracy.
Any one of the three men that decides to run has a rare
opportunity – win or lose – to begin to redefine public
service, reinvigorate our democracy and help bring about the
change they seek. But if they all get into the race at once,
they could transform our politics practically overnight. If
they want to do something incredible for their country, they
should really give it some thought, pick up the phone and
talk it over.
Here’s why:
If you listen to each man’s critique of what is wrong with our
political system, you will find some striking similarities.
In his latest book, Assault on Reason, former Vice President
Gore wrote: “Faith in the power of reason—the belief that
free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by
resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence
available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise
of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.”
“[S]o long as the dominant means of engaging in political
dialogue is through purchasing expensive television
advertising, money will continue in one way or another to
dominate American politics. And as a result, ideas will
continue to play a diminished role.”
Former House Speaker Gingrich, in an op-ed written in
February with former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, called
for a different kind of presidential campaign – one involving
“more thought, more creativity, more substance, more
solutions--and a whole lot less rhetoric.”
Gingrich and Cuomo wrote: “America needs and deserves a
better future. A better future requires candidates with
better solutions to our challenges. And better solutions
require a better format for dialogue and discussion.”
And New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, in announcing this
summer that he was leaving the Republican Party and
becoming an independent, took a shot at the way the two
parties in Washington have governed.
“I am particularly upset that the big issues of the time keep
getting pushed to the back and we focus on small things that
only inside the Beltway are important,” Bloomberg said.
“Any successful elected executive knows that real results are
more important than partisan battles and that good ideas
should take precedence over rigid adherence to any
particular political ideology. Working together, there's no
limit to what we can do.”
Al, Mike and Newt all agree that substantive discussion and
problem-solving all too often take a backseat to overheated
rhetoric. All of them believe that critical issues are going
unaddressed, and all of them believe that America deserves
much better. They’re right, of course. And while it would
take a political earthquake to change things, that’s exactly
what they could deliver if they all jump into the race at one
time and agree to play by a different set of rules.
They should run because no one in the race is running for
office in a way that will make our political system better able
to address critical issues, and that means none of the current
crop of candidates is providing the leadership America needs.
Sen. Barack Obama talks on the stump about a different kind
of politics, but if you want to change politics, then how you
run for president is even more important than what you say.
Obama is saying, in effect, “Trust me, I’m different.” And he
may be different, but it won’t matter all that much, because
Congress will be pretty much the same.
Until we make elections for national office a contest of ideas
and leadership, not money, then we will have a Congress
filled with too many career politicians worried above all
about the next campaign, rather than a Congress filled with
public servants committed to wrestling with America’s great
challenges without regard to their electoral fortunes, their
status within their party or their job prospects on K Street.
A culture of money in Washington has only bought us
poisonous politics that tear us apart rather than bringing us
together; Congressional districts that are rigged to be
lopsidedly Republican or Democrat, so that few lawmakers
have trouble winning re-election; lawmakers who are too
short-sighted, too beholden to special interests, too
ideologically rigid to work with the other party; and a
Congress that has failed to act responsibly, to make hard
decisions and to put the public interest over partisanship and
personal ambition.
The real issue isn’t that there’s anything wrong with the
political agenda of the Sierra Club, Exxon Mobil, the
Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Merrill Lynch, the
AFL-CIO, Wal-Mart, or any other special interest. They play
an important role in our society and they all support policies
and causes that are worthy of consideration. The
problem isn’t what these special interests stand for; the
problem is what happens to our democracy when they inject
millions upon millions of dollars into our campaign system.
Those who identify themselves as Democrats probably feel
quite favorably disposed to strong environmental controls,
consumer protections and employee rights. So why should
they mind if Democratic candidates fill their campaign coffers
with big checks from green groups, plaintiff’s attorneys and
Big Labor? And why would Republicans who support more
oil drilling, low capital-gains taxes and free trade mind if
Republican candidates are funded by energy companies, Wall
Street banks and discount retailers?
For the simple reason that when Democratic candidates pile
up contributions from Democrat-oriented special interests,
they drive Republican candidates into the arms of
Republican special interest groups whose aims are
diametrically opposed to the desires of Democratic voters.
And likewise, when Republican candidates amass funds from
their own special interests, they are increasing the influence
of Democratic special interests whose agenda may be the
opposite of what Republican voters want.
In truth, Republicans are probably happy to see Democratic
candidates go raise money in Hollywood and cozy up to big-
time producers and movie stars. It makes it easier for
Republicans to portray Democrats as liberal elites who are
out of the mainstream. And Democrats are only too happy to
be able to point out the close ties between Big Oil and
Republican candidates, especially with gas prices around $3 a
gallon.
It is as if the mission of each party is to bring out the worst in
the other party and to make sure that the other party will be
deep in the pocket of special interests. But how does this
serve the interests of either party’s voters, when all it takes
is a mere 40 votes in the Senate to kill a piece of legislation?
And how does it serve the public interest? Not very well.
And that’s a big reason why we have a Congress that is
seemingly incapable of addressing critical needs and
recklessly irresponsible when it comes to the nation’s
financial health.
That’s not to say that nothing in Washington can ever get
done, but as things stand now, it takes overwhelming public
support before lawmakers summon the courage to act.
Unfortunately, the challenges we now face – from global
warming to globalization to a looming fiscal crisis – require
proactive leadership of the kind that Washington hasn’t been
able to muster. The stakes are simply too high to cross our
fingers and hope for the best. We need real leadership now.
Enter Gore, Gingrich and Bloomberg. Their role, in addition
to offering what they see as sensible policy prescriptions,
would be to change public – and media – expectations of how
our politicians should campaign for national office. As it
stands, those who are willing to bend the rules of decorum
seem to set the rules everyone else plays by. That would
change on the day that Gore, Gingrich and Bloomberg
announce their candidacies. By setting a voluntary
contribution limit of $500, they would send the clearest
signal that we need candidates who trust far more in the
American people’s good judgment than they trust in
campaign money and who are committed to tackling head-on
the challenges facing America without being encumbered by
promises to any special interest or concern for their own self-
interest.
This self-imposed contribution limit – the equivalent of a
declaration of independence from (though not opposition to)
special interests – is campaign finance reform that doesn’t
require legislation or raise free-speech objections. Perhaps
the only feasible way of transforming our political system so
that it becomes capable of addressing the nation's critical
challenges is to change the rules for campaigns without
changing the law.
Al Gore and Newt Gingrich – the highest elected officials in
either party who still (potentially) have a campaign ahead of
them – can send the most powerful message that the
country isn’t being well served by our campaign process. And
by joining them, Mike Bloomberg, the most prominent
independent office-holder, can increase the impact of their
declaration exponentially – while holding onto his billions.
Personal wealth will be less important if candidates are
expected to run for office in a way that protects the integrity
of our political process; those who reject self-restraint when
it comes to raising – or spending their own – money may be
seen as launching an attack on this nationwide movement to
restore greatness in American politics. Of course, an
independent candidate for president would make a lot of
people nervous. But Bloomberg could make his continued
candidacy contingent upon a decision to be made by next
June based on whether either party’s candidate is
adequately addressing the critical issues facing the nation.
Campaigns would no longer be about dancing around tough
issues, running ads long on empty rhetoric and building
multi-million-dollar campaign war chests to deter credible
opponents from entering the race. Instead, they can become
an uplifting experience and a service to a nation wrestling
with difficult issues and facing great challenges.
There are talented, thoughtful, independent-minded citizens
around the country who have ruled out a run for office, but
they may reconsider if they see a real chance to make
a difference without diving into the neck-deep muck of big-
money politics. And there are surely some members of
Congress who understand that our political process no longer
serves the country well and who wish to leave a different
legacy. They can leave a different legacy and lead a renewal
of our democracy. Together those challenging Washington
from the inside and from the outside have the power to
unleash a new idealism in American politics and overpower
the forces of cynicism, opportunism, entitlement and apathy.
Those answering this call need not be united by ideology or
partisanship, only a dedication to a cause greater than
themselves – the cause of America. The point isn’t to
elect more Democrats, more Republicans or more
independents. All things being equal, voters would choose a
candidate who is a true public servant, rather than a party
hack. But at the end of the day, voters will select the
candidate who inspires the most confidence and best
represents their views. The only purpose is to let our
democracy flourish and to give people a real choice.
what do you think?
FEEDBACK:
What’s The Best Way To Change Our Political System?
By Joe Gandelman of TheModerateVoice:
Is it through reforms passed by Congress? Or is that naive?
Is that the equivalent of having Sylvester the cat babysit
Tweety bird?
Is the best way via reforming politics by changing campaign
rules WITHOUT Congress getting involved?
Walking Think Tank’s idea is the latter. The post is a MUST
READ . . .
different parts of the political spectrum, but their potential
candidacies all share a common rationale: our political
system is failing to address the enormous challenges we face
as a nation.
Gore has fended off calls to run for president by describing
himself as a “recovering politician,” but that’s exactly why he
should run – as a public service to help our political process
recover and elevate our democracy.
Any one of the three men that decides to run has a rare
opportunity – win or lose – to begin to redefine public
service, reinvigorate our democracy and help bring about the
change they seek. But if they all get into the race at once,
they could transform our politics practically overnight. If
they want to do something incredible for their country, they
should really give it some thought, pick up the phone and
talk it over.
Here’s why:
If you listen to each man’s critique of what is wrong with our
political system, you will find some striking similarities.
In his latest book, Assault on Reason, former Vice President
Gore wrote: “Faith in the power of reason—the belief that
free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by
resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence
available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise
of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.”
“[S]o long as the dominant means of engaging in political
dialogue is through purchasing expensive television
advertising, money will continue in one way or another to
dominate American politics. And as a result, ideas will
continue to play a diminished role.”
Former House Speaker Gingrich, in an op-ed written in
February with former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, called
for a different kind of presidential campaign – one involving
“more thought, more creativity, more substance, more
solutions--and a whole lot less rhetoric.”
Gingrich and Cuomo wrote: “America needs and deserves a
better future. A better future requires candidates with
better solutions to our challenges. And better solutions
require a better format for dialogue and discussion.”
And New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, in announcing this
summer that he was leaving the Republican Party and
becoming an independent, took a shot at the way the two
parties in Washington have governed.
“I am particularly upset that the big issues of the time keep
getting pushed to the back and we focus on small things that
only inside the Beltway are important,” Bloomberg said.
“Any successful elected executive knows that real results are
more important than partisan battles and that good ideas
should take precedence over rigid adherence to any
particular political ideology. Working together, there's no
limit to what we can do.”
Al, Mike and Newt all agree that substantive discussion and
problem-solving all too often take a backseat to overheated
rhetoric. All of them believe that critical issues are going
unaddressed, and all of them believe that America deserves
much better. They’re right, of course. And while it would
take a political earthquake to change things, that’s exactly
what they could deliver if they all jump into the race at one
time and agree to play by a different set of rules.
They should run because no one in the race is running for
office in a way that will make our political system better able
to address critical issues, and that means none of the current
crop of candidates is providing the leadership America needs.
Sen. Barack Obama talks on the stump about a different kind
of politics, but if you want to change politics, then how you
run for president is even more important than what you say.
Obama is saying, in effect, “Trust me, I’m different.” And he
may be different, but it won’t matter all that much, because
Congress will be pretty much the same.
Until we make elections for national office a contest of ideas
and leadership, not money, then we will have a Congress
filled with too many career politicians worried above all
about the next campaign, rather than a Congress filled with
public servants committed to wrestling with America’s great
challenges without regard to their electoral fortunes, their
status within their party or their job prospects on K Street.
A culture of money in Washington has only bought us
poisonous politics that tear us apart rather than bringing us
together; Congressional districts that are rigged to be
lopsidedly Republican or Democrat, so that few lawmakers
have trouble winning re-election; lawmakers who are too
short-sighted, too beholden to special interests, too
ideologically rigid to work with the other party; and a
Congress that has failed to act responsibly, to make hard
decisions and to put the public interest over partisanship and
personal ambition.
The real issue isn’t that there’s anything wrong with the
political agenda of the Sierra Club, Exxon Mobil, the
Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Merrill Lynch, the
AFL-CIO, Wal-Mart, or any other special interest. They play
an important role in our society and they all support policies
and causes that are worthy of consideration. The
problem isn’t what these special interests stand for; the
problem is what happens to our democracy when they inject
millions upon millions of dollars into our campaign system.
Those who identify themselves as Democrats probably feel
quite favorably disposed to strong environmental controls,
consumer protections and employee rights. So why should
they mind if Democratic candidates fill their campaign coffers
with big checks from green groups, plaintiff’s attorneys and
Big Labor? And why would Republicans who support more
oil drilling, low capital-gains taxes and free trade mind if
Republican candidates are funded by energy companies, Wall
Street banks and discount retailers?
For the simple reason that when Democratic candidates pile
up contributions from Democrat-oriented special interests,
they drive Republican candidates into the arms of
Republican special interest groups whose aims are
diametrically opposed to the desires of Democratic voters.
And likewise, when Republican candidates amass funds from
their own special interests, they are increasing the influence
of Democratic special interests whose agenda may be the
opposite of what Republican voters want.
In truth, Republicans are probably happy to see Democratic
candidates go raise money in Hollywood and cozy up to big-
time producers and movie stars. It makes it easier for
Republicans to portray Democrats as liberal elites who are
out of the mainstream. And Democrats are only too happy to
be able to point out the close ties between Big Oil and
Republican candidates, especially with gas prices around $3 a
gallon.
It is as if the mission of each party is to bring out the worst in
the other party and to make sure that the other party will be
deep in the pocket of special interests. But how does this
serve the interests of either party’s voters, when all it takes
is a mere 40 votes in the Senate to kill a piece of legislation?
And how does it serve the public interest? Not very well.
And that’s a big reason why we have a Congress that is
seemingly incapable of addressing critical needs and
recklessly irresponsible when it comes to the nation’s
financial health.
That’s not to say that nothing in Washington can ever get
done, but as things stand now, it takes overwhelming public
support before lawmakers summon the courage to act.
Unfortunately, the challenges we now face – from global
warming to globalization to a looming fiscal crisis – require
proactive leadership of the kind that Washington hasn’t been
able to muster. The stakes are simply too high to cross our
fingers and hope for the best. We need real leadership now.
Enter Gore, Gingrich and Bloomberg. Their role, in addition
to offering what they see as sensible policy prescriptions,
would be to change public – and media – expectations of how
our politicians should campaign for national office. As it
stands, those who are willing to bend the rules of decorum
seem to set the rules everyone else plays by. That would
change on the day that Gore, Gingrich and Bloomberg
announce their candidacies. By setting a voluntary
contribution limit of $500, they would send the clearest
signal that we need candidates who trust far more in the
American people’s good judgment than they trust in
campaign money and who are committed to tackling head-on
the challenges facing America without being encumbered by
promises to any special interest or concern for their own self-
interest.
This self-imposed contribution limit – the equivalent of a
declaration of independence from (though not opposition to)
special interests – is campaign finance reform that doesn’t
require legislation or raise free-speech objections. Perhaps
the only feasible way of transforming our political system so
that it becomes capable of addressing the nation's critical
challenges is to change the rules for campaigns without
changing the law.
Al Gore and Newt Gingrich – the highest elected officials in
either party who still (potentially) have a campaign ahead of
them – can send the most powerful message that the
country isn’t being well served by our campaign process. And
by joining them, Mike Bloomberg, the most prominent
independent office-holder, can increase the impact of their
declaration exponentially – while holding onto his billions.
Personal wealth will be less important if candidates are
expected to run for office in a way that protects the integrity
of our political process; those who reject self-restraint when
it comes to raising – or spending their own – money may be
seen as launching an attack on this nationwide movement to
restore greatness in American politics. Of course, an
independent candidate for president would make a lot of
people nervous. But Bloomberg could make his continued
candidacy contingent upon a decision to be made by next
June based on whether either party’s candidate is
adequately addressing the critical issues facing the nation.
Campaigns would no longer be about dancing around tough
issues, running ads long on empty rhetoric and building
multi-million-dollar campaign war chests to deter credible
opponents from entering the race. Instead, they can become
an uplifting experience and a service to a nation wrestling
with difficult issues and facing great challenges.
There are talented, thoughtful, independent-minded citizens
around the country who have ruled out a run for office, but
they may reconsider if they see a real chance to make
a difference without diving into the neck-deep muck of big-
money politics. And there are surely some members of
Congress who understand that our political process no longer
serves the country well and who wish to leave a different
legacy. They can leave a different legacy and lead a renewal
of our democracy. Together those challenging Washington
from the inside and from the outside have the power to
unleash a new idealism in American politics and overpower
the forces of cynicism, opportunism, entitlement and apathy.
Those answering this call need not be united by ideology or
partisanship, only a dedication to a cause greater than
themselves – the cause of America. The point isn’t to
elect more Democrats, more Republicans or more
independents. All things being equal, voters would choose a
candidate who is a true public servant, rather than a party
hack. But at the end of the day, voters will select the
candidate who inspires the most confidence and best
represents their views. The only purpose is to let our
democracy flourish and to give people a real choice.
what do you think?
FEEDBACK:
What’s The Best Way To Change Our Political System?
By Joe Gandelman of TheModerateVoice:
Is it through reforms passed by Congress? Or is that naive?
Is that the equivalent of having Sylvester the cat babysit
Tweety bird?
Is the best way via reforming politics by changing campaign
rules WITHOUT Congress getting involved?
Walking Think Tank’s idea is the latter. The post is a MUST
READ . . .
ABOUT THIS SITE
WalkingThinkTank.com
an independent's search
for fairness, responsibility
and common sense
e-mail
WalkingThinkTank.com
an independent's search
for fairness, responsibility
and common sense