During times of national tragedy leaders, pundits, and others call for us to re-think old paradigms. This is no exception; I believe Saturday’s tragedy in Arizona has driven a wedge into our national consciousness and has given us a short window to address this duality and the violence that it represents.

This is not a time for politics. This is a time for mourning, reflection, and discourse. This tragedy was neither borne of cross hairs on Sarah Palin’s website, Glenn Beck’s rants, or even the Tea Party’s anger; nor can it be undone by simply mitigating our political rhetoric.

The actions of a lone gunman transcend politics and represent something far deeper and more insidious then any single action, statement, or speech by a self-aggrandizing politician or pundit. This tragedy originates from our country’s unwitting acceptance of violence, the scope of which ranges from children maiming their peers in our schools to the violence that originates from fear, hatred, and deception. Bobby Kennedy, in an address after the shooting of Martin Luther King, Jr., speaks to this violence:

[It is] slower, but just as deadly… as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is the slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.”

Our recent national discourse has focused on “toning down” our political rhetoric. While this would represent progress in American politics, it misses the fact that this nation has fostered an environment that allows fear, distrust, and hate to run rampant through our streets. Apathy, division, and acceptance create a climate where these ills can thrive, and it is incumbent upon each of us to change our own attitudes so that this sickness can no longer flourish. It is not easy to talk about the fact that America’s institutions are failing a vast majority of citizens. Nor is it easy to talk about the fear and distrust that has swept the nation over the last few years. There is neither an easy set of policy solutions, nor words that will allow the President and Congress to immediately undo the destruction that has been wrought over years of neglect. Bobby Kennedy suggested over 40 years ago that we must re-engage with one another:

[We must] remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.”

Kennedy offered us a roadmap and a plea, in the waning moments of his life, to recognize that “Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.”

If our nation is to remain great, the wielders of force, fear, and hate must lay down their weapons and remember those who lost their lives in Tucson. In order to end the bloodshed and the slow decay of our society we must accept and recognize that regardless of interests, ideology, race, class, gender, or creed, that those with whom we share this time on earth are our human brothers and sisters. This is about ending the acceptance of violence in our country so that we can end injustice and live up to the promise of our great nation’s exceptional, and humble, beginnings.

Reframing the Purpose

What is the purpose of a political campaign? This isn’t a hard question to answer; quite clearly, the purpose of a campaign is to get a particular candidate elected to a particular office. If that candidate does not get elected to the office they seek, he or she does not get to serve. The idea of the political campaign is rather simple because in our system – when you run for office – you either win or lose.

The idea of the political campaign becomes more complicated when you dig deeper. How negative is too negative? What principles are you unwilling to compromise on, and are the costs of compromising on core principles? What type of tactics are you willing to resort to in order to win? These are just some of the questions each candidate should ask themselves before forming a campaign committee.

Some questions for you before proceeding: how would you answer the questions above? How would you like your elected officials to answer these questions?

I think that we can all agree that particular campaign rhetoric and tactics are damaging to our democratic process. Negative ads that resort to name-calling and the spread of rumors and half-truths are just a few examples. Campaign rallies where elected officials use demagoguery as a means to anger a group of people, or pit one person against another, are more examples of damaging campaign tactics. Policy proposals that are specifically designed to divide the electorate are more subtle, but equally as damaging. These campaign tactics are a reality in our system, and I’ve heard both friends and colleagues rail against them. As a former and current political operative, I can say that these tactics are employed because they are effective. When you are running a campaign that holds victory as its central focus, you will do whatever it takes to win.

My proposal is that we, as an electorate, hold our elected officials accountable by forcing them to run principled campaigns that focus on victory as a means to govern, rather than victory at the expense of governance. What I mean is that our current political system often rewards those who demagogue, divide, and conquer. As I discussed in a previous post, this puts the elected official in an electoral box. In essence, by pandering to the extremes of their party, they find compromise – once elected – an impossible task due to fear of being un-elected in the next campaign cycle.

Furthermore, candidates for public office should adopt a strategy where they run to govern. I believe that when candidates think about the dynamics of governance during the campaign, the paradigm shifts and many tactics that were once attractive become ineffective. While I was not present during John McCain’s first run for President, back in 200, I believe there is evidence that his campaign was run with governance in mind. The “Straight Talk Express” became the image that embodied his bid for President. He promised the American people that he would tell it to them straight, whether they wanted to hear it or not. That initial run thrust him into the national spotlight and gave him the platform to be the Republican Party’s nominee in 2008. While McCain’s strategy changed in the 2008 campaign, I think it is fair to say that his “Maverick” streak is what the American People found so attractive about him during and after the 2000 campaign. Therefore, I argue, that the American People actually crave this type of leadership.

The American People would rather see a candidate who can be trusted to stay true to themselves rather than someone who agrees with them on all the issues. Politics is a blood sport, and nobody is going to agree with you all the time. As a candidate it’s easy to resort back to the idea that “I can’t change anything unless I get elected,” but I would retort that some folks who get elected aren’t able to change anything because of the way they get elected. By focusing on the campaign as a means to effective governance, I believe that candidates will be forced to think about the consequences of their campaign’s actions on the electoral climate of the country.

Over the next weeks I will focus attention on drilling down into the campaign structure to highlight some ways that campaigns can be changed to incentivize more effective governance and a healthier democratic process.

Until next time… stay classy democracy

This level of discourse cannot and should not be tolerated in our political discourse. It is not a phenomenon of the Left or the Right, it is a phenomenon of anger throughout the country. This anger has manifested itself in the Tea Party movement and the recent protests over immigration. What strikes me as particularly odd is that there has been very little discussion about where this anger comes from. I find it unlikely that the anger over the healthcare bill is about the legislation itself. If it were, I imagine we would have seen much more targeted and specific rhetoric attacking the bill itself. Instead, we saw citizens at town hall forums calling their elected officials socialists.

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center noted that since February of 2000 that anger towards government has increased by 11 percentage points. They also note that increasing frustration with government is not a new phenomenon, but increasing anger towards government is new.

So, what does all of these mean to our democracy?

The people that I talk to tend to intuitively believe that the tone of our political discourse is unhealthy. People cite a variety of different ways that it negatively impacts our country, but it seems that nobody can put a finger on why it is so negative.

Before getting to that I do want to establish that both sides of the aisle have been spreading half-truths and fear to rile their base. In an off-year Congressional election the party whose base is most excited typically wins more seats. As a result, Sarah Palin’s claim that the healthcare legislation would contain “death panels” and the Democrats assertion that Republicans hate Hispanics are – in essence – battle cries.

This type of rhetoric damages the process in a variety of ways. I will explore the following impacts in the rest of this post:

• The electoral box
• The anger hypothesis

The Electoral Box
When political candidates pander to the extremes of their party in order to get elected they put themselves in an electoral box. The electoral box is the phenomenon that occurs when candidates owe their election to the extremes of their party. Since these candidates draw their electoral strength from the extremes, once elected, they are forced to take polarized policy positions, which makes it difficult for them to compromise. Compromise is difficult because if they upset their base enough times they will have a difficult time being re-elected. There is no better example of this phenomenon then John McCain who recently criticized bipartisan efforts to craft immigration reform, an issue that he championed during President George Bush’s second term in office. Furthermore, McCain recently stated that he never called himself a Maverick. It has been widely noted in popular media that McCain has tacked further to the right on issues in order to fight off a challenge from former Rep J.D. Hayworth. As a result, McCain has fallen in line with the Republican party, which has made him unable to work with both sides of the aisle to create policy.

From John McCain I would like to focus on Marco Rubio. Rubio is the former Florida Speaker of the House and is the likely Republican nominee for the open U.S. Senate seat in Florida. Rubio has run on a far-right platform that has demonized Governor Charlie Christ for accepting federal stimulus money. He has also run hard against anything having to do with President Obama. Rather than defend this claim by providing specific examples, I would challenge anyone who disagrees with the statement to look at Mr. Rubio’s campaign website and provide me with an issue on which he openly says that he agrees with President Obama (www.marcorubio.com). As a result of Mr. Rubio’s rhetoric, the following question comes to mind: If Mr. Rubio wants to be re-elected by the Florida voters who can he legitimately work with the Obama administration on any major policy issue? The answer, I believe, is that he has almost no room for compromise, and that is detriment to the process. Policy creation is not about the clash of opposing polarities, it’s about hard-fought compromise. Because of how Mr. Rubio is running for office he has almost no room to compromise with the administration for fear of his constituency turning on him (the same way they turned on Governor Christ).

The final example I will invoke is that of Scott Brown. While Scott Brown ran on a platform that opposed President Obama’s healthcare plan and his handling of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), he also conceded that he would be a reformer who worked with both sides of the aisle. During his victory speech he reinforced this point by saying “When in Washington, I will work in the Senate with Democrats and Republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way.” This rhetoric puts Brown in the position to work across the aisle to create effective policy. Because he did not have to pander to the extremes of his party in order to win he is now in a position where he can compromise. To further reinforce this point, he was one of the only Republicans to vote with the Democrats to end the filibuster of the Jobs Bill.

The Anger Hypothesis
Demagoguery that demonizes the opposing side reinforces and strengthens the anger and distrust that already exists in the country. This election cycle has seen a slew of new candidates on the right that have been out to paint the Democrats as socialists who are trying to destroy the country. Furthermore, the cable news pundits have been out spreading half-truths (and sometimes outright lies) about the opposing sides. As personalities like Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann gain popularity the polarization in the country will increase. When people, who are already more prone to being suspicious of government, hear every single day that their President has a socialist agenda and is trying to undermine the foundation of the United States it would make sense that they get angry. Furthermore, of those who associate themselves as being a part of the Tea Party Movement, in a recent poll, 53% consider Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity news rather than entertainment. Furthermore, 63% of those who associate themselves with the Tea Party Movement said that they get a majority of their news from Fox News. With these types of numbers it is understandable that an entire segment of the population feels as if their President, and Government, does not share their values. In the same Tea Party poll 75% of respondents said that Barack Obama does not share the values that most Americans try to live by. This is an enormous problem for our democracy because it completely delegitimizes anything that President Obama tries to do. To see the full results of the poll click here.

The basis of the anger hypothesis is that demagoguery leads to anger and anger leads to distrust in government. This distrust in government manifests itself in a number of ways to peaceful demonstrations, to threats against the lives of politicians, to the inability of elected officials to get things done. Therefore, it is incredibly important for us – as Americans – to be mindful of believing everything we hear.

What now?
From here forward, my blog will be a forum for how we – as a nation – can come together to cure the disease that currently infects our democracy. The assumption underlying this entire experiment is that there is a relationship between the health of our politics and policy. I hope that in this post I was able to effectively draw that link. My next posts will be dedicated to developing ways to strengthen the democratic process through civility, common sense, and common understanding. If you are interested in contributing to this forum please feel free to leave a comment, or send me an e-mail if you’d like to contribute a post. You can contact me at ross.rocketto@gmail.com.

Until next time, stay classy democracy…

After watching the video a few different emotions swelled up. I felt pity for Orly, anger towards the MSNBC “journalists” who set her up, and regret about the level of political discourse in this country. In my opinion, the two MSNBC interviewers simply had Orly on the show to give her a public flogging. I don’t know if the interviewers felt better after publicly humiliating themselves and Orly, but if they do it should be short-lived.

I believe that the only thing the interview did was further strengthen the views of those on the political, social, and cultural extremes and make moderates sick to their stomach. If you are someone who either believes the allegations that President Obama is not a US Citizen, and/or you believe the mainstream media is a liberal propaganda machine, this interview only made you more resolute in those ideas. If you are a liberal who believes everyone on the far right is a nut-case then this interview made you glad that none of your friends are Republican.

This type of “journalism” divides our country, and if we ever want to have anything more than an entertaining political discourse people must push back against this behavior from the media and elected/non-elected leaders.

We are currently in the midst of one of the most important debates of this century regarding the future of healthcare, and all I hear are Republicans jeering Democrats for wanting to take away people’s choices and for wanting to kill old people (thanks Rush Limbaugh). And Democrats respond by calling Republicans greedy insurance company salespeople who only care about money. This CANNOT be the healthcare debate that the American People deserve.

It’s time for our elected officials to step up and tell us what is really going on. It’s time for the American People to hear a debate based on substance and issues, rather than a propaganda campaign being fueled by Insurance Companies, Lobbyists, Doctors, Chambers of Commerce, etc. Universal healthcare has been undertaken by three politically skilled Presidents: FDR, LBJ, and Bill Clinton. We are not going to pass comprehensive and effective legislation if WE - the American People – continue to allow our representatives to grandstand and demagogue. It’s time for all those who say they want change to truly demand it. Instead of going to your townhall meeting with signs, ready to shout-down your representative, go with substantive questions. Go to these meetings and demand that your elected officials cut through the talking points and really level with you. It will be far more difficult and far less rewarding in the moment, than yelling “socialist” or “facist” at the top of your lungs, but maybe… just maybe… you will actually get some straight talk from your elected official. AND maybe… just maybe… your elected official will remember that conversation when they go back to Washington.

None of this is to say that even if gay couples had the legal right to marry that all of the world problems would cease to exist. There will still be individuals who hate others if, for no other reason, than they are simply afraid of those who are different. There will still be hate crims committed against homosexuals and other groups. There will still be people who think that gay marriage is akin to beasteality and incest.

Therefore, it is with sorrow and pitty that I post the following video. The organization who funded this ad – which is running in California – calls itself the National Organization for Marriage. Before watching this video ask yourself, how would your daily life change if homosexual couples had the legal right to marry? Please post your responses in the comments section!

It is also time for us to remember that by pursuing puntative measures that we hurt ourselves. When we incarcerate individuals for long periods of time, criminologists and sociologists find that when the person released from prison that he or she is more dangerous than ever before. Punishment for the sake of justice is not justice at all. When we target bank executives hateful and slanderous remarks who benefits? When we legislate out of populist rage how does that impact the average citizen? It’s time for us – as a people – to come together and work through the current challenges that we face. We may not agree on every issue, but we can certainly reach out a hand to those who are struggling. 

When you pass a serious car accident on the highway what do you do? Do you stop and ask the people what happened? Do you drive by without batting an eye? Or – do you call 9-1-1 for help?