. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
What to Look for in 20-plus Democratic Presidential Candidates
and How Are They Doing As Of Today?
Those of us Iowa Democrats who have yet to pick our final candidate of choice are thankful we still have some time to make up our minds before the precinct caucuses February 3, 2020 -- with New Hampshire (Feb. 11), Nevada (Feb. 22), and South Carolina (Feb. 29) watching and close behind.
Sadly, it won't be that easy -- whatever matchup polls show. For 13 categories of reasons why, see Nicholas Johnson, "Trump Will Lose? Don't Be So Sure," The Gazette, May 29, 2019, p. A6 (in the blog post, "Why Trump May Win"). Moreover, even the Quinnipiac details are concerning. For men (47% Biden, 46% Trump) and white voters (46% Biden, 47% Trump) it's a tossup.
(2) Elvis. Louis Armstrong, when asked to define "jazz" is reported to have replied, "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know." So it is with your candidate having "Elvis." Your candidate either has it or s/he doesn't. At a minimum we want a candidate who will offer us a presidency we will not be afraid, embarrassed, or bored to watch. [Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons; Tupelo, Mississippi, 1956.]
(3) Policies. To what extent are you and the candidate in agreement about the most important issues, policy positions on those issues, and areas of possible compromise?
(4) Lyndon. President Lyndon Johnson's biographer, Robert A. Caro, titled one of the books in his The Years of Lyndon Johnson series, Master of the Senate because of Johnson's never-equaled capacity to persuade. How effective will your candidate be when functioning as president? They are going to need a measure of "Lyndon" as well as "Elvis." How much support do they already have within the U.S. House and Senate to help pass the legislation you and they want? How effective will they be in rallying the American public behind those proposals? What experience have they had managing very large organizations? Do they work well with staff members? How many qualified acquaintances do they have who could fill the 4,000 positions requiring a presidential appointee? What is their understanding of the military, or international organizations and relationships? [President Johnson in Oval Office with West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd. Photo on display at West Virginia History On View.]
So How Are They Doing So Far?
(1) Debates. As of June 12 there were 14 candidates who met the Party's requirement for debate participation under both criteria: (a) polls (3 in which they were chosen by 1% or more), and (b) donors (65,000 with 200 or more in 20 states). They were Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Inslee, Klobucher, O'Rourke, Sanders, Warren, Williamson, and Yang. Six met only the polls standard: Bennet, de Blasio, Delaney, Hickenlooper, Ryan and Swalwell.
Eight have attracted the support of 2% or more: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, O'Rourke, Booker and Klobuchar.
The first debates will be held on June 26 and 27 in Miami, from 8:00-10:00 p.m. Central Time, televised on NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo with their moderators NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt, Today co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd, MSNBC prime-time host Rachel Maddow, and Noticias Telemundo and NBC Nightly News Saturday anchor José Díaz-Balart There are 20 participants; 10 each night. They are said to have been selected at random, drawing folded paper slips from two categories: those in the top tier and all the others. The results?
June 26: Cory Booker, Julián Castro, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, Tim Ryan and Elizabeth Warren.
June 27: Michael Bennet, Joseph R. Biden Jr., Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Johyn Hickenlooper, Bernie Sanders, Eric Swalwell, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang.
(2) Endorsements. FiveThirtyEight has a point scale for measuring the weight of a candidate's endorsements: 10 points for former presidents, vice presidents and current national Democratic Party leaders; 8 points for governors; 6 points for U.S. senators; with lesser points for lesser office holders. Thus, a candidate's comparative "endorsement points" takes on meaning as a measure of his or her support from the Party's "establishment" -- an "honor" that some voters would view with suspicion rather than follow blindly. Here, then, for what it's worth is the current "endorsement points" ranking:
(3) Likability. During one of the 2016 presidential primary debates between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Obama took the opportunity to reassure Clinton, whose "likability" had been questioned, that she was "likable enough."
Is your candidate "likable enough"?
Nate Silver has offered an engaging chart of candidates' various favorability rankings by Iowans; for example, the percentage of those polled who view the candidate "very favorably," "mostly favorably," "mostly unfavorably," and "very unfavorably." From these percentages he calculates the candidate's "favorability score." He also reports the percentage of those polled for whom the candidate is their first choice. He uses data from the Selzer Iowa poll, June 2-5, 2019.
Here are some numbers for the top 8: Buttigieg (4.1), Harris (4.0), Warren (4.0), Biden (3.8), Sanders (3.7), Booker (3.7), Klobuchar (3.6) and O'Rourke (3.6) -- ranked by their Nate Silver "favorability scores" in that order.
Five candidates are the "first choice" of percentages of voters greater than 2%: Biden (24%), Sanders (16%), Warren (15%), Buttigieg (14%) and Harris (7%).
Five candidates have "very favorable" percentages of 30% or more: Warren (37%), Biden (36%), Buttigieg and Sanders (both 32%) and Harris (30%). Combining the "very favorable" and "mostly favorable" percentages, those with a total of 60% or more are: Biden (73%), Warren (71%), Sanders (70%), Harris (63%) and Buttigieg (61%).
The three candidates with the highest (worst) "very unfavorable" percentages are de Blasio (13%), Biden (9%) and Sanders (8%). Combining the "mostly unfavorable" and "very unfavorable" percentages for those over 20% the highest (worst) are: de Blasio (40%), Sanders (25%), Biden (23%), Gillibrand (23%), O'Rourke (21%) and Gabbard (20%). The two best (lowest percentage total unfavorable) among those who were the "first choice" of 2% or more are: Buttigieg (12%) and Harris (13%) (the rest were upper teens and twenties).
Democrats who attend their precinct caucus the evening of January 3 will suffer the blessing of too many wonderful choices. Here's this morning's [Dec. 22] op ed with my suggested analysis for sorting through them to a choice. (And see also on that page the adjoining column by former Congressman Jim Leach, "We should look to Eisenhower, not Reagan, in 21st century.")
All the Democratic Party's presidential candidates would make good-to-excellent presidents. How to choose?
Here are some suggestions from an Iowa-born old Washington hand.
• Don't miss the caucus. Take a friend. New York's Boss Tweed said, "I don't care who does the electing, just so long as I do the nominating." This is your chance to do the nominating. Plus, it's fun.
• Don't rely on "positions" and rhetoric. A campaign is not a presidency. Even if meaningful and honestly spoken, political forces and conditions change.
• Forget "electability." Any Democratic Party nominee is electable in 2008. (Although Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's high negatives create some risk.) Consider their ability to govern.
• Forget the media's top three. Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards are going to New Hampshire regardless. Use your chance to "vote twice." Support one of the others you want kept in the race. If they're not initially "viable" at your caucus you can switch.
Experience at everything
All have "experience" at something. But a president needs experience at everything. Who has the broadest, deepest range of experience?
An American president is policy wonk in chief as well as commander in chief. Federal personnel director as well as national cheerleader. They must maintain our economy while improving our foreign relations. Above all, they must have superior, large-institution administrative skills and experience.
When they negotiate and deal with other major institutions it gives them credibility as well as real understanding if they've worked within them: Congress, cabinet positions, municipal and state governments, international organizations, and negotiations with foreign leaders.
We don't have a school for presidents. There's no parliamentary system to provide the ultimate prime ministers both administrative and legislative experience.
Quality rankings
So here are the qualities I'm looking for -- followed by my opinion of who ranks highest.
• Experience administering large institutions (state or large city governments, corporations) -- Gov. Bill Richardson (governor; Secretary of Energy), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (mayor of Cleveland).
• A "people person" with charisma or down-home manner, sense of humor (including self-deprecation), or what Molly Ivins called "Elvis" -- Obama (charisma and "Elvis"), Richardson (down-home; humor).
• The understanding and credibility earned by working inside both Washington's executive and legislative branches -- Richardson (cabinet (Energy), Congress). (Legislative: Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson and Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd).
• A willingness to put forward courageous, "best policy" proposals, rather than "starting off backing up" --Kucinich (only one to organize and vote against the war, and propose universal single-payer health care rather than for-profit insurance).
• Experience working inside international organizations (e.g., U.N., World Bank) -- Richardson (UN ambassador).
• Understanding of the elements and process of citizen empowerment -- Obama (community organizer).
• An understanding of foreign policy (as distinguished from administering it) -- Biden, Dodd (plus, of course, Richardson).
• An ability to work with, but an independence from, special interest money and influence (the "Washington Establishment") -- My guess is that all have, can (and will have to) work with Washington's real power centers.
However, Clinton's strength in this department is her weakness. She and Bill could probably name all of their 4,000 presidential appointees in one evening without notes. But part of the reason for their millions from corporate lobbyists and PACs is the Washington Establishment's expectation of another pro-corporate, business-as-usual Clinton administration.
• Experience negotiating with foreign leaders -- Richardson (North Korea, Iraq, Sudan; U.N.; return of hostages); Biden and Dodd.
• Champion of the underdog -- Edwards, Kucinich.
You may have a different list of qualities and evaluation of candidates. But I hope this kind of approach may be helpful to you in a year when we are blessed with a very tough choice from among excellent candidates. _______________ Nicholas Johnson served as maritime administrator, FCC commissioner and presidential adviser for a White House Conference during the terms of three presidents. He now teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains the blog, FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.,/i>
July 4, 2007, 6:00, 7:00 a.m. [addition of links and excerpt from "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption"], 8:35 a.m. [addition of "Other News" links], 3:10 p.m. [addition of links to photos of Coralville 4th of July parade (in "Other News" section)]
Yesterday morning, on reading the Press-Citizen's page one story that the University of Iowa was seriously considering the unprecedented step of naming one of its colleges after a corporation, I made an effort to think through some of the issues this raised in my mind. The blog entry on the subject ended up with 11 categories of issues involved in "The Name Game" surrounding the naming rights to universities, their colleges and buildings. Nicholas Johnson, "Wellmark's College of Public Health" in "The Corporate College of . . .," July 3, 2007.
By this morning it was obvious that I was not the only one who was concerned. Governor Culver, Board of Regents member Bob Downer, and numerous others were raising some of the same points that I had blogged about yesterday, reported in page one stories in the local press. E.g., Brian Morelli, "Possible Naming Raises Concerns; Some Fear Conflict of Interest with Wellmark, College,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 4, 2007, p. A1.
State29, apparently blogging on these issues about the same time that I was, came up with a similar analysis -- although, as always, expressed in much more colorful language. State29, "Enron Field," July 3, 2007.
Our so-called "public universities" (increasingly "private" in terms of operating budgets and escalating tuition and other student expenses) are in a period of transition -- although to what is not altogether clear. I wrote about these alternative futures in a Press-Citizen op ed. Nicholas Johnson, "Where Are We Going? Who's Going With Us?"Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 19, 2007.
Faculties, funded by grateful legislatures and protected by tenure, used to debate issues such as whether it was still necessary to require all Ph.D. candidates to exhibit some fluency in Latin and Greek. Most professors probably did not know -- and would have seen little reason why they should -- anything about their university's taxpayer-funded budget (aside from their own salary).
Today, an ever increasing number of faculty are (a) employed without thenure, and (b) required to personally raise part or all of their own salary and supporting expenses. There's not much talk about Greek and Latin requirements in that environment.
But these are changes for which many faculty -- and those among them functioning as deans -- are ill prepared. Not only do they not have experience, or hold degrees in, "business," they (like the public-policy-driven aspiring young politician) probably did not spend their early years honing a passion to become, and then spend a significant portion of their lives as, a major fund raiser.
We are familiar with the "conflicts, cover-ups and corruption" in business. When State29 headlines his blog entry about the Welmark College of Public Health "Enron Field" it's a shorthand we all immediately understand.
Indeed, there are some who would suggest that "business ethics" is an oxymoron. Notwithstanding our business schools' courses in the subject the scandals continue to fill the pages of our newspapers, the reports of our congressional hearings, and provide grist for feature films. (Michael Moore's "Sicko" is only the latest in a long line.) See, Nicholas Johnson, "'The Corporation' and the Search for Agreement," October 1, 2004 (reflections and suggestions following a UI College of Business viewing, and discussion, of the film "The Corporation").
But the business community has some awareness of the inherent conflict of interest it confronts on an hourly and daily basis. The recent reports regarding products from China -- from pet food, to human medicine, to children's toys to automobile tires -- are reminiscent of our own history of business (not all of it ancient history). Off-shore tax havens, outsourcing manufacturing, reducing quantities while increasing prices, pumping up stock prices with "creative accounting," raiding pension funds, cartels and price fixing among competitors -- the examples are endless.
It is said, "You get what you measure." And when all you measure is what falls to the bottom line (and bounces back in the form of ever-increasing stock prices) there is a great temptation to let moral and ethical values fall as well.
Unlike the business community -- and ironically in some ways -- the academy is much less experienced, sophisticated or reflective about such moral dilemmas. Moreover, we're handicapped -- as are the clergy and many politicians -- with the genuine belief that, because we, our mission and goals are so pure of mind and spirit and set apart from worldly matters, anything we do is of necessity equally pure and commendable. Those in business, by contrast, are aware of the moral and ethical pitfalls. They may choose to ignore ethical issues and focus only on maximizing ever-increasing profits, but at least they are aware of what they are doing. They know what the ethical standards are; they know what they're doing.
Academics often do not.
To help explain, let me repeat some of what I wrote in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption." At the time, of course, I had no idea the University of Iowa would ever actually consider selling off the name of a college, or building, to a corporation. I was merely writing about the kinds of potential conflicts of interest, and tough ethical and moral dilemmas our new President, Sally Mason, will necessarily find herself having to address. The discussion helps to set "The Name Game" in the context of a range of ethical dilemmas. Here's an excerpt:
The story illustrates another problem with greed. Once money becomes the sole coin of the realm, and the need for profits is replaced with ever-increasing pressure for ever-increasing profits, conflicts of interest become ever more difficult to resolve ethically.
Years ago magazines aimed at women said little to nothing about the fact that the number of women dying from lung cancer was increasing, ultimately surpassing the number dying from breast cancer. Editors knew the story, they knew lung cancer's relationship to increased cigarette consumption by women, they knew manufacturers were targeting women -- and doing so in significant measure with the ads the companies were running in their magazines. But they needed the advertising revenue and, well, "women probably aren't interested in reading those stories anyway."
The NCAA wants to distance itself from sports gambling, and the gambling industry generally, in every way possible. It expressly forbids association with gambling casinos at NCAA events or in its advertising. It highly recommends that NCAA schools follow the same practice. It has written the UI athletic program with regard to its partnership with the Riverside Gambling Casino. And yet our football program tries to rationalize the gambling partnership while refusing to do anything about it.
This morning's Daily Iowan reports, Ashton Shurson, "Mason, Barta Set to Work Together,"The Daily Iowan, June 26, 2007, that our new president has paid proper respect to the athletics program and its director. The story quotes Interim President Fethke as saying, "You have to respect the athletics director's opinion and point of view and trust that person."
Fethke's "respect" was so substantial that he's never (so far as I know) said anything critical in public regarding the NCAA's slap in our face about our gambling partnership with the Riverside Casino. Will the leadership that Mason brings include the ethical, moral and legal issues this relationship raises -- or will she continue the deafening silence from Jessup Hall on the issue because, after all, the athletic program is increasingly responsible for raising its own money, they have to get it where they can, and a university president must show "respect" to the athletic director?
Universities are not immune from the pressures that in corporate American can produce an Enron, or the political pressures that produce a U.S. Congress that simply can't "afford" to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry. Mason has been advised that as much as one-third of her time should be spent in fund raising. Clearly it's a major part of what she has been hired to do, a major part of the "performance" that can produce an extra $50,000 a year under her contract.
As such, she -- like every other big university's president -- will be subjected to similar pressures as the editor who must decide whether s/he can "afford" to run an essential story that will cause a loss of advertising revenue, an athletic director who must weigh the advice (and standards) of the NCAA against the revenue that can come from the gambling industry, or a politician in need of campaign contributions deciding how to vote on a measure that will clearly help her constituents but cause a special interest group to cut off her funding.
How will she decide whether to accept a major contribution from a donor who wants a faculty member fired (or hired), or a program established that is antithetical to the university's mission?
We've already stopped naming colleges and buildings for scholars and started naming them for donors. Are there any limits? The CEO of Home Depot gave $200 million to the Atlanta museum. Would we, for an equivalent amount, become "The Home Depot University of Iowa"? What if Larry Flynt would offer $300 million if we'd change the name to "Flynt University"? (After all there's a "Stanford University" and a "Duke University" -- named for a guy who made his money from tobacco.) Why not a "Flynt University"? We need his money as much as Barta needs the gambling industry's money.
What about a corporation that is willing to underwrite a multi-million-dollar research program -- so long as it gets a disproportionate share of the benefits from what it produces?
How candid should she be about, or should she even acknowledge at all, a potential scandal that could deal a blow to fund raising?
The question is not whether she will confront such conflicts. Of course she will. It goes with the territory in an age in which what used to be educational institutions with public support have developed more in common with for-profit corporations. The question is how she will respond to them. These conflicts often involve shades of gray. The more profitable choice can often be rationalized in some way -- as Barta tries to do with gambling money.
How many bars are there within walking distance of the campus -- 40? They are so profitable -- and therefore so politically powerful -- that the City Council seems incapable of doing anything meaningful to curb students' binge drinking. Well, who are these customers anyway? They are students. The University's students. Our students. At a time when the University is in need of every source of income it can find, when it issues lucrative monopoly contracts to Coca Cola (so it can raise its prices) notwithstanding the product's health impact on students, why just wink at the profits from binge drinking when the University could be sharing in them? With a little ingenuity I think the University could be pulling in the lion's share of that money with its own entertainment venues. Something to think about.
I imagine that even President Mason cannot now imagine the choices -- the potential conflicts, cover-ups and corruption -- she will have to confront or how she will resolve them.
This morning's Register story illustrates how "just a little harmless doctoring of the promotional literature" is not only morally wrong, but can backfire. If those putting comments on that Register story represent the majority they may be, that may just be "all she wrote" on the sales tax for the wealthy.
Pictures of the Coralville Fourth of July Parade, with emphasis on presidential candidates (listed alphabetically by last name, Democrats and then Republicans) and other elected officials, separated by shots of other floats and scenes.
Note: As always, The Gazette's stories can be found at its main Web site.)
The Fourth of July: Speaking Truth to Power
Leonard Pitts, Jr., "America is at War With Itself," The Gazette, July 4, 2007 ("it seems to me it is not the people who make America great, but America that has made the people great -- [the idea of America] the idea of American exceptionalism")
And thanks to The Gazette for reminding us, today, of the full text of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, The Gazette, July 4, 2007, p. A7 -- the ultimate speaking of truth to power that made possible the birth of our nation.
Diane Heldt, "Wellmark College at the UI?; Plan to put corporate name on school in exchange for gift prompts concern," The Gazette, July 4, 2007, p. A1.
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
July 3, 2007, 6:00 a.m., 7:15 p.m. [addition of photos from Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton events], and 8:25 p.m. [addition of response to attached reader comment, and reference to earlier blog entry, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption"]
There are a number of issues and concerns regarding the naming of public buildings in general and academic buildings in particular -- and the possibility of a Wellmark College of Public Health raises almost all of them.
* Should buildings be named for anybody?
* If so, should the naming be limited to ancient scholars, inventors, researchers, creative persons, and so forth -- such as the names that surround one of the buildings on the Pentacrest?
* Or, can the naming include more contemporary such individuals -- but only after they have died?
* And, if so, what about naming them for such individuals while they are still alive?
* Is it appropriate that the names of buildings and colleges be "sold off," in effect, to major donors -- with the symbolic consequence that an academic institution appears to be bestowing its greatest honors on wealth in preference to wisdom?
* If an academic institution is going to offer its programs for sale, should there be any individuals whose money should not be accepted for this purpose -- say, convicted felons, those who have made their money in illegal businesses, or from legal but questionable businesses (e.g., prostitution where legal, gambling, or pornography)? If so, how (and by whom) should these standards be established?
* Is there "a difference that makes a difference" between accepting money from an individual donor for these naming purposes, and accepting it in exchange for a name that includes the donor's corporation (or, as in this case, that corporation's foundation), thus putting the name of a business rather than a person on a building or college?
* If it is acceptable to include a corporate name in the name of an academic building or college, are there additional issues raised when that corporation's mission is in some way, directly or indirectly, related to the college's mission? For example, because corporations have their own training centers and "universities" (I once attended one run by IBM) does it risk confusion in the public mind (similar to the concerns in trademark law) to include a corporate name in the name of a university's college or building when its academic mission is similar to that of the corporation? Is this potential problem exacerbated at a university that includes in its mission "economic development" and the provision of space and other resources for the purpose of spinning off for-profit corporations?
* Does it make it better -- or worse -- that there is a commercial relationship between the corporate donor and the college in question? Does Wellmark's purchase of a UI medical college's name somehow compromise the ability of the University of Iowa to negotiate with Wellmark -- something that's already been a little controversial in the past? Will it prevent, or at least substantially impede, the ability of the University to switch providers sometime in the future, should that be seen to be in the University's best interest?
* What if the corporation's mission is actually antithetical to the mission of the college; e.g., what if the company in question had been, say, Phillip Morris, which contributes to one of the leading public health problems in America, rather than Wellmark, which merely profits from one of the leading public health problems in America? Would that have made a difference? (And there's the related question: Would a "Phillip Morris College of Law" be acceptable, although not a "Phillip Morris College of Public Health"?)
* Finally, when corporate money is accepted in exchange for the naming of buildings or colleges, what is the metric, what is the rate card and how is it calculated, in deciding how much to charge? To the extent the naming constitutes a form of advertising, is the advertising market relevant for these purposes? If so, should the fee charged be an annual payment, rather than a one-time payment, as would normally be the case with advertising?
There is a reason why business spends at least $250 billion a year on advertising -- and, since we are talking about public health, a good deal of which involves advertising for tobacco, alcohol and drugs that is viewed by children, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics' report. Advertising works; advertising sells; advertising is an investment that pays returns -- as it will in this case for Wellmark.
Consider what an advertiser gets for naming rights, say, Cellular One's arena in Cedar Rapids (formerly the Five Seasons Center). It's not just its name on a building -- that can be seen for miles around by anyone passing through town. The name is contained in every newspaper ad for a event at the venue. It's on highway signs directing people to the building. It's on the tickets. It's on every piece of stationery.
Wellmark will get the same range of benefits -- and more -- from having its name on a University of Iowa building. And how much more is it worth to gain the reputation and good will of a major university, by association, than just some old conference center?
We've long since decided we're willing to sell off the University's good reputation. If you haven't yet guessed, that troubles me. But accepting the reality of where we are at the moment, shouldn't we at least, as George Bernard Shaw suggested, start "haggling over price"? Don't we have the same obligation to the people of Iowa that we would if we were selling off the state's top soil -- to make sure we get the most for it we possibly can? When we take a lump sum to name a building after a corporation -- forever -- isn't there a great likelihood we're selling out too cheaply?
[There is a related discussion in Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007, regarding the challenges confronting our next UI president as she necessarily must balance some of these moral/ethical questions against the fund raising that has been said to be at least one-third of her job. As that blog entry discusses, these potential conflicts go well beyond, of course, those involved in naming buildings and colleges. But in that earlier blog entry I ask,
We've already stopped naming colleges and buildings for scholars and started naming them for donors. Are there any limits? The CEO of Home Depot gave $200 million to the Atlanta museum. Would we, for an equivalent amount, become "The Home Depot University of Iowa"? What if Larry Flynt [publisher of Hustler Magazine] would offer $300 million if we'd change the name to "Flynt University" [or "Hustler University"]? (After all there's a "Stanford University" and a "Duke University" -- named for a guy who made his money from tobacco.) Why not a "Flynt University"? We need his money as much as Barta needs the gambling industry's money.
A comment attached to today's blog entry notes the number of universities -- many quite distinguished -- named for business people who were major donors. This is a useful point, and I appreciate the offering of those examples. The person writing the comment urges no more than an acknowledgment that this names-for-dollars approach is not something new. I agree. However, I would note that:
(a) most of the examples listed -- including the addition of one I earlier noted that is not on the list (Duke; tobacco money) -- are private universities (Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and Stanford). Admittedly, the University of Iowa -- with something like 13 percent of its budget coming from the State of Iowa -- is now "Iowa" in name only, and ever closer year by year, with its rising tuition and outside funding, to becoming a "private university" named for a state. Private universities are, by definition, with the exception of government grants for research, sustained by private tuition and donors. They have no (or few) alternative sources of funding. "Public universities," by contrast, were for the most part -- at least at their inception -- created with the notion of public funding, and free or virtually free tuition, as a public, non-corporate, institution.
(b) My discussion involves 11 paragraphs. That some universities (for the most part private universities) have been named for donors, and that this has been historically common and accepted, relates at most to the first five. It does not address the issues in the final six -- dealing with the naming of colleges, buildings or universities for corporations -- no examples of which are provided in the list in the comment.]
There are undoubtedly other issues involved as well, but this should be a good start on a few morning thoughts about "Wellmark's College of Public Health."
# # #
Other News:
Gartner praises Fethke; Biden impresses Iowa City yesterday; President and Mrs. President-Aspirant Clinton arrive today; over 40% white males have (or have had) alcoholism or serious drinking problem (and Iowa City's City Council and bars are doing their best to increase those numbers; way to go Iowa City); . . .
and I haven't forgotten State29's request for some commentary about the Fairness Doctrine (the subject of Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" (WBUR-AM) this morning, "Conservative Talk Radio").
James Q. Lynch, "Biden Counts Off Qualifications in I.C.," The Gazette, July 3, 2007, p. B5; Associated Press, "30 Percent Have Abused Alcohol," The Gazette, July 3, 2007, p. A3 (both available at The Gazette's main Web site).
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
For my own little blog entry contribution to Memorial Day I offer a couple of links to others' creations, and a quote from a political rally yesterday as confirmation of, and a lead in to, a reprinting of a couple of pieces of mine -- one an earlier blog entry, the other an op ed column.
"Speaking of Faith." One of my favorite "Sunday church services" is the radio program, "Speaking of Faith," created and hosted by Krista Tippett. Yesterday she ran a repeat of her 2006 Memorial Day program. You can listen to it, for free, from her Web site, where it's now featured as "The Soul of War." (As the site describes it, "With Iraq veteran and chaplain Major John Morris, we explore how war challenges the human spirit and the core tenets of a life of faith.") I found it as informative as moving in my personal probing of the depths of what Memorial Day is designed to honor.
Mouths of Babes My next offering is a video sent me by Cindy Asner. It's a six-minute speech by a 13-year-old girl to a United Nations' gathering, a plea to the grownups to do a better job of governing. The current Iraq war puts all the sacrafice on the troops and their families (and the Iraqis). No rationing, no wartime excess profits tax, no war bonds, no victory gardens, no pay-as-you-go taxation. Instead of such sacrifices after 9/11, his suggestion, President Bush simply proposed, "Here are some tax breaks. Go shopping." So we did. Since we're putting the $2 trillion cost of this war on our grandchildren's credit card, we probably do owe them at least a respectful listen. Here, then, is Severn Suzuki:
When winning isn't "the only thing." Packers coach Vince Lombardi is most often credited with the line, "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing" (though it may have first been uttered by UCLA coach Henry "Red" Sanders).
Upon learning the Democrats were continuing to insist they were trying to stop the war (a war they had earlier voted to start) while simultaneously voting to give President Bush an additional $100 billion to keep it going, I began a blog entry, immediately following one updating the Mary Gilchrist case, with these two paragraphs:
Whatever you may think of Biden as a presidential candidate -- and he certainly made a forceful impression -- or of his positions on the war (unlike Senators Clinton and Obama he voted for the $100 billion and, as the photos show, there were anti-war protesters at the event) -- he uttered a line that caused me to take out my Palm and make a note of it:
"There are some things worth losing an election for."
What a concept! It's one I don't think I have ever before heard coming from a win-at-any-cost elected official. It is so contrary to what I was bemoaning in that "Ending the War" blog entry: politicians willing to continue to fund an unnecessary and counterproductive "war of choice" -- with all the human and economic costs that involves in deaths, lifetime disabilities, and destruction of Iraq's basic infrastructure -- rather than risk being seen as sufficiently "weak on terrorism" that they might actually lose their next election.
And finally, . . .
"Counterproductive" War Why do I call it a counterproductive war? For the same reasons I outlined before Bush sent in the troops: Nicholas Johnson, "Ten Questions for Bush Before War,"The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003, p. 6A. This was an analysis that is not, of course, as detailed as those now coming out that were provided to the Administration by intelligence officers at the time -- but it is fully consistent with them. It's just further evidence that figuring out what was likely to happen was not rocket science; it was even obvious to a communications law professor in Iowa. That, too, is something worth reflecting upon this Memorial Day.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
