Caucus With Your Heart and Head -- for Bernie

Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette
January 26, 2016, p. A8
Some 40 years ago in Washington, D.C., I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to come from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They’d heard the questions before, and we’d heard their answers.

How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate’s chair, or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball, were attractive but rejected by the producer.

The ultimate solution was found in a question I have put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. “Senator, let’s make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are ‘right on the issues.’ And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners’ unsafe working conditions than they do now?” (One could substitute the military-industrial complex’s control of defense budgets, or oil company subsidies.)

Some candidates would stare blankly. Some would become angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.

When I put the question to Senator Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, “Well, Nick, I’ve been a community organizer.” I’d visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth’s Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I’d learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief! I was mistaken.

Senator Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of “Bernie, Bernie” by saying, “this is not about ‘me,’ it’s about ‘we.’” “This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us,” he’s said.

Of course, like most Americans, I like his specific proposals — increased minimum wage, health care for all, higher taxes on the wealthy, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, jobs improving infrastructure, and many more.

But far more important than the specifics is his belief that government should serve all the people, the socio-economic bottom as well as the top 1 percent. That a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That when candidates of either the Democratic or Republican parties’ establishments talk of proposals, the results look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.

Of course, I’m impressed with the more conventional things said about Sen. Sanders. His authenticity. His enormous, enthusiastic crowds, and millions of supporters. That he not only talks against Wall Street and PAC funding, he walks the walk by refusing their money — while raising enough from small donors. He’s had experience as a mayor, congressman and senator, one who understands the federal government’s working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he’s as easily (or more) electable as the others. He has the best “unfavorable” numbers.

But most important to me? His lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent. His ability to answer my 40-year-old question; his knowledge of what’s required before a government can serve the people. A campaign that’s already begun building that citizen organization.

Are you in the 1 percent? There are establishment candidates for you. If not, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sen. Sanders’ vision and voice comes booming out of Iowa’s precinct caucuses, loud and clear across America throughout 2016. It’s up to you.
__________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City has held presidential appointments during the administrations of three U.S. presidents, and been involved in presidential elections since 1952. He maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Comments mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

[This column appeared online as Nicholas Johnson, "Why I'm Supporting Bernie Sanders for President," The Gazette (online), January 26, 2016, 10:51 a.m.]

____________________
Why Support Sanders

Nicholas Johnson
The Daily Iowan
January 28, 2016, p. A4
This is the story of how I came to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. It’s a true story — or at least as true as a fading memory can provide.

Some 40 years ago in Washington, I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to be coming from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They’d heard the questions before, and we’d heard their answers.

How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate’s chair or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball were attractive but rejected by the producer.

The ultimate solution was found in a question put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. “Senator, let’s make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are ‘right on the issues.’ And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal-mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners’ unsafe working conditions than they do now?” (One could substitute the military-industrial complex’s control of defense budgets or oil-company subsidies.)

Some candidates stared blankly. Some became angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.

When I put the question to Sen. Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, “Well, Nick, I’ve been a community organizer.” I’d visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth’s Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I’d learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief. I was mistaken.

Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of “Bernie, Bernie” with “this is not about ‘me,’ it’s about ‘we.’ ” “This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us,” he has said.

I like his proposals for increased minimum wage, health care for all, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, justice for African-Americans, and equal pay for women, among others.

I’m impressed with his authenticity, enthusiastic crowds, rejection of PACs, and funding a campaign with millions of supporters making $27 average contributions. He’s had experience as a mayor, congressman, and senator. He understands the federal government’s working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he’s as (or more) electable than the others. He has the highest Net favorability numbers.

But most important to me? His belief that a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That the establishment’s proposals, whether from Democrats or Republicans, look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.

It’s his lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent; his knowledge of what’s required before a government can serve the people — that the people must lead before their leaders will follow. His campaign has begun building that citizen organization.

Are you in the 1 percent? You have many establishment candidates to choose from. Otherwise, whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sanders’ vision and voice comes booming out of Iowa’s precinct caucuses, loud and clear.

[This column appeared online as Nicholas Johnson, "Why I Support Sanders," The Daily Iowan (online), January 28, 2016.

Earlier, yet a third variation of this material appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen as as Nicholas Johnson, "Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 21, 2016, 4:04 p.m., and in the hardcopy edition as Nicholas Johnson, "Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2016, p. A7, a copy of which is embedded in this blog site in an entry headed, "Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too," January 22, 2016.]

# # #

Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too

Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2016, p. A7
This is the story of how I came to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. It’s a true story — or at least as true as a fading memory can provide.

Some 40 years ago in Washington, I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to be coming from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They’d heard the questions before, and we’d heard their answers.

How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate’s chair, or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball, were attractive but rejected by the producer.

The ultimate solution was found in a question put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. “Senator, let’s make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are ‘right on the issues.’ And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners’ unsafe working conditions than they do now?” One could substitute the military-industrial complex’s control of defense budgets, or oil company subsidies.

Some candidates would stare blankly. Some would become angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.

When I put the question to Sen. Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, “Well, Nick, I’ve been a community organizer.” I’d visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth’s Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I’d learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief! I was mistaken.

Sen. Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of “Bernie, Bernie” with “this is not about ‘me,’ it’s about ‘we.’” “This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us,” he’s said.

Of course, like most Americans, I like his specific proposals — increased minimum wage, healthcare for all, higher taxes on the wealthy, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, jobs improving infrastructure and many more.

But far more important than the specifics is his belief that government should serve all the people, the socioeconomic bottom 50 percent as well as the top 1 percent. That a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That when candidates of either the Democratic and Republican parties’ establishment talk of proposals, the results look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.

Of course, I’m impressed with the more conventional things said about Sen. Sanders. His authenticity. His enormous, enthusiastic crowds, and millions of supporters. That he not only talks against Wall Street and PAC funding, he walks the walk by refusing their money, while raising enough from small donors. He’s had experience as a mayor, congressman and senator, one who understands the federal government’s working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he’s as equally electable as the others. He has the best “favorability” numbers.

But most important to me? His lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent. His ability to answer my 40-year-old question; his knowledge of what’s required for a government to serve the people. A campaign that’s already begun building that citizen organization.

Are you in the 1 percent? There are establishment candidates for you. If not, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sen. Sanders’ vision and voice come booming out of Iowa’s precinct caucuses, loud and clear across America throughout 2016. It’s up to you.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City has held presidential appointments during the administrations of three U.S. presidents, and been involved in presidential elections since 1952. He maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

# # #

When Believing Is Seeing

July 14, 2014, 6:20 a.m.

Check It On Snopes
Note: For more on this subject see, "Snopes, Popes, and Presidents," December 26, 2014, and "Obama-Haters' Rhetoric and Media Responsibility," July 5, 2014.
_______________
When Believing Is Seeing

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 14, 2014, p. A5
Hitler’s Joseph Goebels is credited with the strategy that, “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.” That’s deliberate lying.

More common is Mark Twain’s insight that, “It’s not what we don’t know that’s the problem, it’s what we know that ain’t so.” We’re not “lying.” We’re just repeating false information we assume is true because it’s consistent with our beliefs — something journalists are trained to guard against.

New York’s four-term U.S. Senator Daniel Moynihan famously admonished, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

But what are we to do when it is our opinion that creates our facts?

“Seeing is believing?” Yes, sometimes. But the reverse is also true: “Believing is seeing.” We tend to see that which supports our belief.

In a Yale paper last year, “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government,” the authors report their research finding that even scientists, highly skilled in math, make more errors when the correct math answer leads to conclusions contrary to their political orientation.

The phenomenon occurs for what we love as well as what we hate. Fans of Pope Francis are likely to believe favorable, false stories about his good deeds, however implausible (e.g., he’s slipping out at night to visit Rome’s homeless). See, “Snopes, Popes and Presidents,” http://bit.ly/1mRLzLY.

Similarly, Obama haters are equally willing to believe almost any emailed negative assertion about our “Muslim, socialist, Kenyan, imperial” president — and send it on.

Snopes.com is a wonderful online service for checking the truth of the “urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation” that circle the global Internet each day. So when the occasional Obama-haters’ email comes our way, we check it on Snopes.com, and kindly inform the senders if the email is untrue.

Recently came a whopper, widely circulated since January.

It was so obviously wrong on so many counts it would have been hilarious if it hadn’t been seriously libelous in its efforts to link the President — and Hillary Clinton, too, for good measure — to words allegedly authored by community organizer Saul Alinsky: “Eight steps required to create a socialist state.”

To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s retort when Senator Dan Quayle compared himself to Jack Kennedy during their 1988 vice presidential candidate debate, “I knew Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a friend of mine. And believe me, Sir, Saul Alinsky never wrote those words.”

Nor could Barack Obama have received the mentoring from Alinsky the email hints at, since President Obama was only 10 years old when Alinksy died. In fact, during a conversation I once had with candidate Obama about community organizing, neither of us even mentioned Alinsky’s name.

The need to oppose, and demonstrate the evil in everything President Obama has ever read, thought, advocated or done can lead to bizarre results, one of which is the email’s effort to demonize community organizing as “socialism.” It not only reveals equal ignorance regarding both, but rejects what is actually just another description of democracy.

Community organizing is the study, design, and utilization of strategies by which neighborhoods, or other groups of individual citizens, can more effectively present their grievances and proposals to governments and other institutions. These are techniques millions have proudly used since our nation’s birth, including both the Tea Party and Occupy movements during this century.

What can we do?

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow simply tries to state the facts occasionally. Examples: “He really was born in Hawaii. And climate change is real. And rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes. And evolution is a thing. And no one is taking away anyone’s guns. And the moon landing was real. And regulations of the financial services industry are not the same thing as communism.”

You get the idea.

And for the rest of us? “Check it on Snopes or risk looking like dopes.”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City, maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org and the blog, http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

For more, in the form of related research on this subject, see, Amina Khan, “‘Liberal’ or ‘Conservative’? Brain’s ‘Disgust’ Reaction Holds the Answer,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 30, 2014 ("[F]indings, published in Current Biology, show that the brains of liberals and conservatives may indeed by wired differently — and shed light on the biological factors at play in political beliefs. . . . [M]any of the same subjects at issue in certain political ideologies – attitudes toward sex, family, education and personal autonomy, for example – have an emotional component as much as a logic-based one. And some research has indicated that political leanings can be inherited (much in the same way that height can inherited but modified, affected by a number of factors from nutrition to the environment).").

# # #

At Last, Action

January 23, 2013, 10:50 a.m.

Obama as National Community-Organizer-in-Chief

"You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course. You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time -- not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals."

President Barack Obama, Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 2103, whitehouse.gov [Photo credit: multiple sources]

As an FCC commissioner, I discovered what I called "the vector analysis of administrative decision making." Figure out the directions from which pressure is being applied to an administrative agency, and the force of those pressures, and you can pretty much predict where that agency's decision will end up.

Congress is subject to a similar analysis. It differs from agencies only in the force of the pressure, with special interests' millions in campaign contributions and thousands of lobbyists. But the principle is the same: without countervailing pressure from other directions, and a pressure of similar force, it is fairly obvious the special interests will get what they want (or, more often, be able to prevent what they don't want).

As I've written elsewhere,

The anecdote is told of President Franklin Roosevelt telling advocates of progressive ideas, in effect, “I agree with you. Now you go out there and make me do it” – at least with Frances Perkins (Social Security) and A. Philip Randolph (civil rights legislation), and probably many more. His point, of course, was a variant of the old adage, “When the people will lead their leaders will follow.” It’s very difficult to pass legislation over the opposition of the special interests without overwhelming popular awareness, involvement and support.

Nicholas Johnson, "'The Answer' in 2008," Are We There Yet? Reflections on Politics in America (2008), pp. 160, 162.

On April 22, 2007, I had the opportunity to put a question to then-candidate Obama at an event in Iowa City. It was a process question. It was not a "what are you going to promise us you will do?" question, but rather a "and how are you going to get it done?" question.

Obama's response was, "Nick, I've been a community organizer."

Like many Americans' responses to Senator Obama's statements in 2007-08, I may have gone too far in breathing into that answer what I wanted to hear. I had visited with Saul Alinsky, whom even Bill Buckley recognized as "very close to being an organizational genius." I had gone through training at Heather Booth's Midwest Academy -- familiar to Obama.

I went away from that conversation with my personal vision of a President Barack Obama as America's "national community-organizer-in-chief." Yes, yes, I thought. He understands the distinction between legislative proposals and legislative enactments; he has had the experience; he knows how to do it. He has already created and utilized in his presidential campaign the technology to expand the process from a single neighborhood to an entire nation. "Yes, we can."

Like so many hopes for change, it didn't quite work out that way.

Now, in his second term, following those two sentences from his inaugural address quoted at the top of this blog entry, it looks like he may be prepared to draw on that prior experience as a community organizer, and the wisdom of President Franklin Roosevelt's approach to change, and apply a little vector analysis to the congressional legislative process.

If you want to join in the effort to "go out there and make him do it," here at last is your chance:

Jon Carson, "Welcome to Organizing for Action," January 20, 2013,

along with a little encouragement from Michelle Obama:



# # #

Legislating, Educating: Obama as Community Organizer

September 7, 2012 11:00 a.m.

Whither the Democrats?
President Barack Obama is scheduled to speak on the University of Iowa Pentacrest today, September 7, 2012.

Five years ago, April 22, 2007, I had the opportunity to put a question to him at a comparable event in Iowa City.

It was a question I had put to a great many presidential candidates since the 1970s, starting with a series of television interviews I hosted, on through the quadrennial parade of candidates through Iowa City attracted by Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses.

It soon became apparent that most candidates for public office, including presidential candidates, have been asked so many questions, at so many events and interviews, over so many years, that few if any questions come to them as a surprise. The responses are smooth and designed to sooth, rehearsed and delivered as if recorded, played back from a tape cassette implanted in their brain.

The possibility occurred to me of having someone throw them a ball to see if they could catch it, or sneaking up behind them and tipping over their chair, to see how they'd react. Anything to get video of an unrehearsed response would be better than what was happening.

The producer rejected this suggestion.

Ultimately, I came up with "the question." In an Iowa City living room, it would go something like this: "Senator" (for they often were senators), "let's make two assumptions -- one, that you are, as we say, 'right on the issues,' and two, that you get elected. Why are the coal mines going to be safer places for coal miners to work? Why will the Congress stop spending our money for weapons systems the Defense Department doesn't want? Why will shipowners' subsidies be cut?"

It was, in short, a process question. It was not a "what are you going to promise us you will do?" question, but rather a "and how are you going to get it done?" question.

Almost all were totally flummoxed by the question. They had seemingly never thought about it before. Even Senator Hubert Humphrey, who was a friend and very effective senator I greatly admired, responded, "Gee, Nick, that's a great question. We need to talk about that. You come on over to the office and we're going to talk about that."

A couple came up with, "Well, I'm going to appoint good people to office" -- a response that made clear they didn't understand the problem. After all, I had been (as U.S. Maritime Administrator) what I would like to believe was a "good person in office," and had some sense of the limitations. Agencies of that sort tend to be covered by a pro-industry trade press, rather than general media. The congressional committees that determine the agencies' appropriations, legislation, and oversight tend to be made up of elected officials who come from areas impacted by those industries, and whose campaigns are funded by them. The agency's employees are wined and dined by representatives of the industry. (In the case of the agency responsible for monitoring BP prior to the Gulf oil spill, it turned out the employees were literally sleeping with industry representatives.) And although not true in my case, industry representatives often have easier access to the supervising cabinet officers and White House staff than the agency heads themselves.

No, unless "good people in office" are prepared to go along with everything their regulated industry wants them to do, they are going to be very frustrated.

In fact, during the last 40 years there have only been three presidential candidates who have at least grasped the question, the problem, and the possible answers: Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, and Barack Obama.

Obama's response to me, five years ago was, "Nick, I've been a community organizer."

Like many Americans' responses to many of candidate Obama's statements in 2007-08, I may have gone too far in breathing into that answer what I wanted to hear. I had visited with Saul Alinsky, whom even Bill Buckley recognized as "very close to being an organizational genius." I had gone through training at Heather Booth's Midwest Academy -- familiar to Obama.

I went away from that conversation five years ago with my personal vision of President Barack Obama as America's "community-organizer-in-chief." Yes, yes, I thought. He understands the problem. He has the insight that, as the saying has it, "When the people will lead, their leaders will follow." Or, as President Roosevelt put it to a petitioner, "I agree with you absolutely. We must do what you say. Now you go out there and make me do it." Or, as I have said before, "If you can't legislate, educate."

Obama has had the experience. He knows how to do it. He has already created and utilized the technology to expand the process from a single neighborhood to an entire nation. "Yes, we can."

Like so many hopes for change, it didn't quite work out that way.

Earlier this week I signed on to an open letter to the U.S. Senate and House Democratic Party leadership from 20 Democrats who had, in years past, served in the Senate and House, Executive Branch, administrative agencies, or other positions.

The signers, and their former positions, are: Senators James Abourezk, Fred Harris, Gary Hart; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administrator Joan Claybrook, New York Mayor David Dinkins, Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Peter Edelman, Civil Rights Commission Commissioner Christopher Edley Jr., U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee Executive Director James K. Galbraith, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, New York Consumer Commissioner Mark Green, Texas Railroad Commissioner Jim Hightower, Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, U.S. Ambassador Derek Shearer, Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners President Stanley K. Sheinbaum , New York Governor Eliot Spitzer; Professor and MSNBC commentator Michael Eric Dyson, People for the American Way founder and TV producer Norman Lear, MSNBC commentator Ron Reagan, Rush Communications Chair and CEO Russell Simmons.

The recipients were: Senators Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray, Charles E. Schumer; and House Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, James Clybun, John Larson, and Steve Israel.

You can find the full text of the letter here: "Open Letter From Leading Democrats to Congressional Democratic Leaders: How Democrats Can Get Back on Offense," Protect Democracy, September 3, 2012. Meanwhile, these excerpts will provide the gist:

GOP rhetoric and policies [are] extreme . . ., e.g., climate change is a hoax, voter fraud is a menace justifying voter suppression, regulations only impose costs never benefits . . . and the American President hates America. Given such regressive nonsense, where are the Democrats? The surprising answer — often defensive, defeatist, and reactive. . . .

[W]e urge Democratic Party leaders to show leadership in at least three ways:

Frames: Let’s reframe issues so that platitudes and metaphors don’t pass for analysis. . . .

With Romney-Ryan’s unpopular views on tax cuts for the wealthy and “VoucherCare” for the elderly, now’s the perfect time to frame this election as between John Galt and Modern Family -– the 1% who believe “we’re all in this alone” (Sen. Durbin’s phrase) versus “everyone’s better off when everyone’s better off.” With reactionaries dominating the policy, language and financing of the GOP, the best way Democrats can win is to hit the gas not the brakes.

Record: A weekly RepublicanReignofError could explain what would happen if those running on a right-wing-and-a-prayer actually got their way. Not just facts but stories: . . ..

Ideas: Among the things that make Democrats exceptional is FDR’s axiom that we pursue “bold, persistent experimentation.” Where are the successors to Social Security, GI Bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act? To help Democrats win and govern, what can be our positive mandate?

I suffer no illusions that our letter was anything more than what many Democratic Party strategists have been thinking. But for whatever reasons, many of our sentiments were heard in the speeches of President Bill Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and last evening's address by President Obama -- among others. (In Iowa City, Obama acknowledged President Clinton's home run in Charlotte: "'Michelle was amazing. President Clinton made the case in the way only he can,' Obama said. 'Somebody emailed me after his speech they said, you need to appoint him secretary of explaining stuff. That was pretty good. I like that -- the secretary of explaining stuff -- "splanin."'" "After Conventions, More of the Same," Politico ("Reid J. Epstein reported from Iowa City"), September 7, 2012.)

Voting does make a difference, as we discovered in the South after the Voting Rights Act was passed and enforced. Once African-Americans were able to vote, and did so, they discovered a remarkable improvement in the city services provided in their neighborhoods. There are a sufficient number of poor, working poor, working class, and lower middle class people in this country that if all of them would register, vote, and support the candidates who will represent their interests their candidates would win every time.

Organizing remains the key to victory in 2012, as it did in 2008. I suspect the President will have something to say about that this evening on the Pentacrest. How Americans respond will make all the difference.

[President Obama and Cast of 8000; Iowa City, Sept. 7, 2012; Photo Credit: Iowa City Press-Citizen]
# # #

National Community Organizer-in-Chief

November 6, 2008, 7:30 a.m.

OK, Now What?
Why I Did, and Will, Support President Obama

My enthusiasm about President-Elect Obama's victory is as great as anyone's -- with the possible exception of those African-Americans who are my age or older. My seven years in Austin, Houston, and traveling throughout the deep south during the 1950s were far from their lifetimes of oppression, but the environment and what I witnessed of the ravages of segregation and discrimination were enough to open this white Iowa boy's eyes and heart, and provide a little more meaning and force to my singing of "we shall overcome some day" during the 1960s. We haven't yet reached Dr. Martin Luther King's mountaintop, but at least it's now a lot closer than it's ever been.

Besides, law professors tend to favor as presidents former law review editors -- even if what they edited was the Harvard Law Review. I just hadn't thought there were enough law professors to get Senator Obama elected, but delighted to find out just how wrong I was.

Finally, I noted yesterday ("Global Election Results: 'The Whole World is Watching,'" November 5) the importance of our elections to the citizens throughout the world who will be affected by it, and the beginning of end of the harm that the last administration's rhetoric and actions have done to our standing in the world. (See, e.g., The Kenya Times' stories; and see bottom of blog entry for a very moving first-hand report.)

Every world citizen's best interests are served by hoping for President Obama's success and doing what they can to bring it about -- but that is multiples more true for those of us in this country who are in the best position to be supportive and helpful.

Having said all of the above, however, there is a difference between "supportive and helpful" and "unthinking cheerleading."

The Citizen's Duty to Criticize Government

The case of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), established the standard that public officials must meet in suing for defamation (that the defendant either knew his or her statement was false, or exhibited reckless disregard in ascertaining its truth). Justice Brennan, writing for the Supreme Court, noted the protection given public officials when they are sued for defamation (for example, for something said by a U.S. senator during a debate in the Senate). He continued, "Analogous considerations support the privilege for the citizen-critic of government. It is as much his duty to criticize as it is the official's duty to administer . . .."

Note that Justice Brennan is not just saying that we American citizens have a privilege to criticize government -- though of course we do -- he says that those who live in a country that was designed and is devoted to be governed by its citizens ("self-governing") have a duty to criticize their government.

Hopefully, this will be what we call "constructive criticism." Hopefully the critics will have learned somewhere along their educational path the difference between data, facts and the scientific method on the one hand, and opinion, inference, rumor, and ideology on the other. Hopefully they know that when obscenities or mean-spirited misrepresentations are hurled at officials they only reveal what is going on inside the speaker's head, rather than anything about the world outside.

That New York Times v. Sullivan protects some pretty awful political speech from defamation suits doesn't make it commendable citizenship.

President Obama as National Community Organizer-in-Chief

Don't get me wrong. My clear inclination is to believe that a President Obama will be speaking and acting out of a love of country, a superior intelligence, and desire to do what he believes to be in the best national interest. I believe that President Obama at his worst will be better than President George W. Bush at his best.

But my dream, my hope, is that he will be even better than that.

Based on the very first conversation I had with him, plus a number of his speeches since, my hope is that he will use us -- the 3.2 million contributors, the millions more of supporters whose email addresses he has, and such of the 64+ million who voted for him whom he can contact or otherwise motivate -- as the "community" for whom he is the "national community organizer." As the saying has it, "When the people lead their leaders will follow." Or, as President Roosevelt is said to have urged public interest advocates, "I totally agree with you; now you go out there and make me do it."

Part of what makes Washington "broken" (as even Senator John McCain would say), part of the reason Wall Street and K Street seem to have their way with the federal government, is that we -- you and I -- aren't "at the table" with the lobbyists and special interests to whom our local representatives and senators, as well as the White House, are too often beholden.

Without Us There is an Improbability of "Change"

Without a president who will encourage and enable our meaningful and effective participation it's not clear to me how we get from here to there, how "change" can be possible. "Reaching across the aisle," reaching for compromise, sounds good -- and is certainly better than Democrats and Republicans, or the legislative and executive branches, throwing rotten eggs at each other. But if the senator doing the reaching is heavily funded by, say, Big Pharma, and the hand he grabs is that of another senator heavily funded by Big Pharma, the result may improve legislative harmony but is unlikely to improve our access to health care.

So long as Big Pharma and Big Oil are drafting the legislation, and making the campaign contributions necessary to get it passed, on economic issues the next four years are going to look an awful lot like the last eight years.

As Common Cause finally learned after 30 years of trying, campaign finance reform legislation has to be passed by incumbents. And incumbents have little enthusiasm for changing a system that virtually guarantees the re-election of those incumbents who want to be re-elected. I see no indication that incumbents attitudes about this are going to change -- especially after witnessing the success of a presidential candidate who reversed course, rejected public financing, and sailed on to a $600 million victory.

So the only hope I see for meaningful change in the way Washington does business is for "the people to lead" -- hopefully with the encouragement, rather than the resistance, of the president who could be our "national community organizer."

When "Centrist" Becomes "Continuity" -- and Early Appointments

President Obama never promised to be, and has given us no indication of being, a populist or progressive. He offered little to no rhetoric of the Robert Kennedy variety regarding the needs of the poor (as distinguished from "the middle class"). He reversed his position on trade, and immunity for the telephone companies than illegally wiretapped their own American customers. He voted for the first $700 billion flawed bailout of Wall Street -- the source of much of his financial support. His healthcare proposal bears little similarity to the "universal, single-payer" systems of most industrialized nations; it retains the high administrative costs, CEO compensation, and corporate profits of the insurance and healthcare "industry."

I appreciate that there is a case to be made for continuity and against "change."

But to the extent you personally favor the notion of change one thing to keep an eye on are the early appointments. To the extent Bush's cabinet officers are kept on (Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been mentioned in that connection along with keeping General General David Petraeus in place), or former Clinton officials are brought back (former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers has been mentioned for Treasury Secretary), that tends to suggest relatively more emphasis on continuity and less on change.

"Can't Tell the Players Without a Program": Clues From the Transition Team

Here are some names from the Washington Post of transition team members at this point to help you follow news from the personnel front as it unfolds (as many-to-most of them will presumably find their way into positions in the Administration after January 20).

Obama spent most of the day ensconced in a downtown office building where he held discussions with Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.; John D. Podesta, who was President Bill Clinton's chief of staff; Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.); and senior campaign advisers. . . .

Leading the Obama-Biden Transition Project are Podesta; Valerie Jarrett, a close friend of Obama's; and Pete Rouse, Obama's former Senate chief of staff. . . . Obama . . . is expected to name his chief of staff, most likely Emanuel, this week. . . .

After weeks of speculation about who might fill the Treasury post, financial industry and Obama sources said the list includes Timothy F. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Lawrence H. Summers, who was Treasury secretary at the end of the Clinton administration and has been a close adviser to Obama on the economy.

Geithner has been deeply involved in the government's response to the nation's economic crisis since it began in September. While he has extensive knowledge of the financial system, he is not as well known to Obama as is Summers.

Obama could also draw from his core economic team, which includes former Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, and Laura D'Andrea Tyson, who chaired Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. . . .

Others suggested the possibility of a less conventional pick, perhaps a Wall Street name such as Jamie Dimon, chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase. . . .

Beyond the Podesta-led troika, a separate team, headed by Mark Gitenstein and Ted Kaufman, will guide the transition process for Biden.

A senior transition staff will oversee day-to-day activities: Chris Lu, Obama's legislative director, will serve as executive director. Campaign communications director Dan Pfeiffer will move into the same role for the transition. Stephanie Cutter, Michelle Obama's chief of staff, will serve as chief spokesperson. Obama friend and think tank executive Cassandra Q. Butts will serve as general counsel, a job that will include vetting job candidates for ethical conflicts. Campaign chief of staff Jim Messina will become personnel director. Phil Schiliro, a Capitol Hill veteran, will run congressional relations.

The transition team advisory committee includes numerous Clinton veterans and allies of Obama and Biden. One member key to the economic planning is Michael Froman, a former chief of staff to Rubin at the Treasury Department during the Clinton years and an Obama classmate at Harvard Law School.

Anne E. Kornblut and David Cho, "Obama Team Shifts to Transition Mode; Bush Extends Invitation, Calls Historic Election 'Uplifting,'" Washington Post, November 6, 2008, p. A1.

And see, Jim McElhatton, "Big-time Obama fundraisers to aid transition," Washington Times, November 6, 2008 (e.g., "Donald Gips, a former top aide to Vice President Al Gore who helped the Obama campaign raise at least $500,000, will serve on an advisory board overseeing the Obama transition" -- along with the names of many more, including Valerie Jarrett).

_____

Here is a letter from someone I do not know, shared with me by a friend, that reveals a good deal of what the election of President Obama is doing to improve our image abroad:

My dear friends,

Today I have had to travel from the island of Borneo...from SABAH and the town of Kota Kinabalu. Then to Kualam Lumpur where I had a 5 hour lay over and finally arriving very late at night in Bangkok. The election has already begun....

Today, in honor of the election, I am wearing an Obama '08 button on my lapel. If the treatment and reaction throughout my day is any indication of what our world might become....I am overwhelmed with optimism. First, every single place I went, someone noticed the button and called out, "OBAMA!". There were international administrators from across the region at the Hotel. Many of them nodded and smiled, and even the non-Americans who reacted with huge enthusiasm. One man from Australia stopped me to talk politics for 10 minutes. The crew working behind the desk all gave a thumbs up...the taxi driver did not charge me for taking me to the airport.

I must explain that, once at the airport, I am one of very few Americans among Asians from all over this region. I might possibly be the only blond in either airport I have been in so far today, and won't see many if any Americans until Bangkok. I do not speak the language...thank goodness they speak English.

Upon seeing my button, everyone, without exception, smiles. I have received preferential treatment all day long. They didn't make me pay extra for a heavy bag, they treated me in short, like royalty. The stewardess told the pilot, who stood up in the cock pit to give me a thumbs up. Even the immigration official barely looked at my passport. He was much more interested in knowing an Obama supporter and what I thought would happen today.

When I was buying dinner at a very American McDonalds (the only place to get something to eat), the entire crew behind the counter (not one American) came to say kind words to me. The man who exchanged my money asked how I could do anything so far away from the USA. I told him, with some amount of pride, that I had voted by absentee ballot. He took my hand and said, "thank you so much for voting for Mr. Obama." There were actual tears in his eyes.

While waiting at the airport in Kota Kinabalu and girl about 9 years old saw my button. She smiled broadly. I said hello and she asked if I wanted Obama to win because she did and her whole family did and that that morning they said a prayer that he would. I told her that I thought Barack would like that a girl all the way in Kota Kinabalu said a prayer for him. She asked could I tell him that they were praying for him and I said I would send an email to his headquarters. She was so excited that she ran to tell her parents. Her father came over and asked me if I knew Obama. I told him I had seen him speak, but never met him. He said that his whole community was praying for Obama and that he appreciated that I would write an email to tell him. He took my hand and said, we are praying for all of the American people too. This was the second stranger to take my hand today. It was my turn to have tears in my eyes, because this man, who I didn't know, was completely sincere. I thanked him. He said, "all of us, together...do you understand?" I said, "All of us together." We parted...smiling!

I write this as I sit in the airport at Kuala Lumpur waiting for hours for the plane. The women who guard the doors have on muslim headdresses, orange pants outfits and lime green jerseys. They are shy and reserved, yet they give me the thumbs up, and quietly whisper, "Obama" as I walk by. There are Thai and Chinese, and Indonesians and Indians surrounding me...The languages, dress, foods are all interesting. And sitting right next to me is a Buddhist monk, in just his orangish/yellow robes and shaved head. He smiles broadly when I look at him. He says frankly, "I like Obama."

The man behind the counter is Malaysian. He asks if I voted and when I confirm I have he laughs really loud and says something to the other official sitting next to him. This man laughs too. They both look at me intently. The one, fighting to find the right english begins, "This is (something in Malay). I smile saying I don't understand. He looks at his colleague and rattles something in Malay...The man says just a minute. He gets out a book. It is an english translation book. He says something to the man and hands him the book...pointing to a line on the page. The 1st man turns back to me and says..."this is fan/tas/a/tic...fan-tas-aahhh-tic...how do you say?" I tell him, yes, he is right "Fantastic". They laugh again at their attempts. I laugh too. He stamps everything forcefully, "wham! wham! wham!" And then he says something none of these officials ever take time to say, "We hope you will come back and visit our country!" "Of course, I say, of course." I don't quite know how to explain the full meaning of his invitation. Americans haven't been at the top of the list for quite awhile and traveling around, it isn't hard to sense.

Our leaders reflect who we are as a country/nation. I have always been proud of my family and Oregon. I have not always been proud of our leaders and the choices they make. Today I am proud...I am proud of our country and I was tearful watching a top French official trying to explain to the BBC reporter why the whole world is watching this election and praying that Obama will become our president.

Well, thank you for letting me share. Tomorrow at 7am we head to the American Embassy gathering to watch the election results come in. We are attending with world leaders and diplomats. We are to dress "smart casual". It should be quite the experience...one I hope brings new hope to our country and the world.

# # #

Gov. Richardson & "The Question"

June 27, 2007, 6:00, 8:30 a.m. [times reflect additions to the entry -- for the benefit of those few individuals who check back occasionally during the day -- as well as reflecting the fact that what is called "life" occasionally interrupts blogging]

Richardson and "The Question"

As predicted yesterday, John Deeth the blogger was at the Governor Bill Richardson event (Iowa City Public Library, June 26), and thus there's very little to add to his report.

Because he never travels without his laptop he figures it's entitled to its own bumper sticker, which says: "REBOOT AMERICA." It's one Richardson could have used as his theme yesterday.

Local papers covered the event, but -- even covering politics as horse race -- didn't think Richardson's rapid rise in the polls (from 1% to 13-18%) worth page one display. Leah Dorzweller, "Dem Presidential Hopeful Shares Executive Vision; Richardson Speaks to Packed Crowd at Public Library," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 27, 2007, p. 3A; James Q. Lynch, "Richardson Draws I.C. Crowd," The Gazette, June 27, 2007, p. 3B; Erika Binegar, "Richardson Would Hit Ground Running," The Daily Iowan, June 27, 2007.

These days, with online newspapers, it's not enough that the paper's photographer provides one or two shots for the next day's edition. They're expected to prepare a "gallery" of pictures -- and virtually immediately. Here's the Press-Citizen's this morning. I can't compete with a professional camera and photographer with the eye of the P-C's Matthew Holst, but here is one from a selection of 13 pictures I took at that event and posted on my Picassa site.

So what is "The Question"? It's one I've put to most of the candidates for president since the early 1970s. It goes to the heart of what politics in a democratic society ought to be about. It's something we know how to do, and insist on in other countries. And yet few candidates have ever even thought about it -- let alone come up with a plan for implementation. What is the question, and how and why did I come up with it? And how did Richardson do with it?

The answers will come later this morning, after I've interrupted my blogging with a little bit of "life."

I'm back. But before addressing "The Question" I should note that, while I'm not endorsing anyone -- a lot can happen in the six months between now and the January caucus -- I thought Richardson did a great job yesterday. He was relaxed, engaging, funny, warm, and willing to stay a half hour or more beyond the 11:30 "deadline." I found his "the first six days in office" an effective way to package quite an array of what he proposes to do for us. And most of what he was proposing was very well received by the overflow and often enthusiastic crowd (as you'll see from one of my pictures -- which doesn't even show those in the hall outside Meeting Room A) -- and by me. (Much of the content of his remarks is provided in the stories and Deeth Blog linked above.)

The Question

So why was I questioning presidential candidates over 30 years ago? I had been asked to host a TV show on which they appeared, one each show. Frankly, I don't remember the details, except for what led to "The Question."

I quickly discovered that it was difficult to get anything very new or different from a candidate who had already been asked the standard questions dozens if not hundreds of times. It was as if they had little audio cassette tapes that they plugged into their brains and played back, one for each question.

What to do? I considered having someone throw them a baseball, or tip over their chair -- anything to throw them off guard a little, something that would provoke something more spontaneous than their polished performances. The producer said I couldn't do it.

So I finally came up with a question they hadn't confronted before, and I have been using variations of it ever since.

"The Question" on those early shows, and later in some Iowa living rooms, took the following form: "Senator," because it usually was a senator, "let's make two assumptions: one, you are 'right on the issues,' whatever that means to the audience; they like your platform and proposals. Two, you are elected president. Please tell us, why are the coal mine operators going to have less control over coal mine safety than they do now?" (Of course this can be, and often was, expanded with examples from many industries and agencies.)

Most candidates over the years have fallen mute. The best one could hope for was some feeble, "Well, I'm going to appoint good people to office." That was one answer clearly revealed they didn't understand the problem.

The "good people" they appoint to office (if such can be found, given industry pressure to appoint their people to the regulatory agencies they will have to deal with) will find themselves pretty isolated. It may be one of those agencies where employees come from, and return to, the industry. It may be one where they are wined and dined by industry representatives. These "good people" will be reporting to congressional committees made up of elected officials whose primary source of campaign funds is the very industry being "regulated." And the media? The mainstream media will largely ignore the agency. Media coverage will be primarily from the trade press covering -- and being funded with advertising dollars from -- the industry in question.

(Let me also note, for balance, that I have known a number of civil servants who are among the brightest and most public spirited, independent and courageous people anywhere.)

So much for "good people" heading agencies -- however much they may be an improvement over "bad people."

What is needed (as I privately explained to Governor Richardson yesterday) is the kind of citizen participation in agency process that -- when the decision goes for the industry, as it almost always will -- provides a "party," someone with "standing," to appeal the decision to the relevant U.S. Court of Appeals.

Such groups (primarily, if not exclusively, representing the interests of citizens and consumers rather than those with direct and substantial economic interests in the outcome) -- and, yes, I know they will represent far right conservative individuals as well as the lefties and libertarians -- can also use their access to the mainstream media, and the political process, to get the story out of the trade press and into the public consciousness. But their most effective leverage is through the judicial process when agencies are engaged in clear violations of law, as they sometimes are. Note that, without their participation there is simply no one who can appeal. The agency's pro-industry decision stands.

I didn't have notes yesterday, and I don't know if anyone has a recording of his presentation, so I don't know exactly how I phrased "The Question" to him. But it was somewhat along these lines:

"As you can tell from the response you've received there are a lot of folks here who seem to appreciate and support what you say you will do for us. What I'd like to know is what you propose to do to enable us to help you get those things accomplished in the face of special interest opposition? How can we better accomplish what we, as individuals and members of numerous citizens' groups, would like to accomplish in addition? Even with total public financing of campaigns we would still be up against overwhelming odds from the special interests with their well-paid thousands of lawyers, lobbyists and publicists, their advertising and public relations budgets -- and today their campaign contributions in the millions of dollars. What things do you have in mind along the line of the Legal Services Corporation, agency reimbursement of intervenors' expenses, treble-damage antitrust remedies, class action suits, private attorneys general actions, and so forth?"

Much as I like Richardson, I have to say he cast his lot with the majority of candidates who have either never thought about such things or don't think them very important. His was kind of an AmeriCorps-type response -- things the government could sponsor that would invoke the "ask what you can do for your country" response. Great ideas, but not likely to curb special interest control of the Congress and the agencies.

I've never known the details of the following story. It may be apocryphal. A citizens' group gained an appointment with President Roosevelt. After their presentation he said to them, "I agree with you absolutely. We must introduce that legislation. Now you go out there and make me do it." That is another thing we can do as citizens -- indeed, we are the only ones who can -- in addition to the litigation to keep the agencies honest. We can provide the political, grass roots support that enables elected officials who would like to do the right thing an argument to use with the special interests that oppose what they, and we, want to accomplish.

Over the years there have only been three who grasped the question, and two who understood the answers. Hubert Humphrey acknowledged it was a great question and that the next time I came to his office we should talk about it. Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader knew how to proceed.

This year Barack Obama came closest, reminding me that he had worked as a community organizer. But he didn't carry his response beyond that.

It's not like this stuff is unknown in Washington. Even President George Bush has a rhetoric about "democracy" in other countries, though he doesn't always reflect the prerequisites to creating it. Those prerequisites involve something we call "civil (or civic) society" or "social capital." I've participated in some of these efforts abroad. This can involve everything from trade unions to Rotary Clubs to community media outlets; building citizen experience in coming together for public policy or programmatic purposes and then working to accomplish the stated goals.

We know how to do it -- and Obama's "community organizing" is a major component of the training. We just don't.

We know how to train our K-12 students to get out of the school house and into the court house, city council chambers and legislative halls to practice citizen power in a democracy. But we don't do much of that, either. (See, e.g., Center for Civic Education and National Council for the Social Studies and its "Creating Effective Citizens.")

We're not talking more "book learning" and classroom lectures here -- however important both may be -- we're talking "experiential learning" and performance -- political, policy, legal and media accomplishments.

A president could do a lot to build a "civic society" here in America -- but only after he or she begins to grasp why it is a need, and mounts the courage to take on the thousands of those in Washington who rather enjoy and find quite acceptable the rule by self-proclaimed elite that has served them so well.

# # #
[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.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 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.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 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.]

# # #