David Gergen's Blog

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. 
--David Gergen

From the CNN Political Unitupdated 2:13 AM EST, Wed November 23, 2011 Analysts pick debate's winners, losersCNN GOP debate memorable momentsBachmann hits Obama on Keystone decisionPerry slams Obama over militaryPerry: 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 nameRepublican candidates debate securityGOP candidates debate Iran strategyGingrich: 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."

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analystupdated 10:49 AM EST, Mon November 21, 2011The deficit super committee was asked to find more than a trillion dollars in debt reduction.STORY HIGHLIGHTSDavid Gergen: Congress' failure to reach debt deal is recklessHe says leaders in Washington, including president, have failed the peopleAt a time of economic crisis, compromise on budget would be a prudent step, he saysGergen: Congress and White House are punting on other economic issuesEditor'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 GergenRepublicans 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"?

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, and Michael Zuckerman, Special to CNNupdated 1:05 PM EST, Tue November 15, 2011Activists carry a placard depicting Congress as a puppet of corporate lobbyists in a May, 2010 event in Washington.David GergenA 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.

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analystupdated 8:22 PM EST, Wed November 9, 2011Union supporters fought back against Gov. John Kasich's bill limiting rights of public employee unions in Ohio.STORY HIGHLIGHTSDavid Gergen: Two messages can be drawn from Tuesday 's votesHe says voters in some places struck back at GOP for going too farDemocrats, unions succeeded in overturning Ohio law on public employeesGergen: The votes sent signals that next year's election will be very closeEditor'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 GergenBut 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.

Nov 4, 201102:25 PM ETShare
Comments (Add comment)Permalink
OutFront 5 Fast Questions for David GergenYou 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.

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analystupdated 5:35 AM EST, Thu November 3, 2011Herman Cain addresses an event Wednesday in Virginia. He didn't answer reporters' questions about harassment allegations.David GergenJoel 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 CainOnce 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 allegationsCain lashes out at reportersAccuser's attorney on how story leakedWhat Cain's body language saysMoreover, 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?

By MICHAEL G. PROULX, CONTRIBUTING WRITER for The Harvard CrimsonPublished: 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."