Category Archives: Elections

For hire: the next president

Elections ahead
By Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

In a representative democracy like ours, voters should see themselves as human resources directors, not vote-at-home reality TV show viewers.

So for this column, let’s set aside televised presidential debate performances and act like we’re hiring someone for a job, which we are. Presidents don’t actually debate once they’re in office, anyway. Let’s also set aside each candidate’s ideology, personality, perceived character, and ability to inspire. Those are important, but we’ll get to those later in the hiring process. Finally, let’s set aside our own emotions and preconceived notions about the candidates and their parties. Instead, we’re sifting through resumes and looking at the candidates’ qualifications. Those ought to count for something, right?

We all know Hillary Clinton will be the Democrats’ nominee. She was a very influential first lady who played an important role in her husband’s presidential administration. She then served as a U.S. senator and then secretary of state. Based on those experiences, she’s qualified to make the second round.

If there’s a job that best prepares a person to be president, it would be governor of a large state. On the Republican side, the most qualified candidate is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Kasich is one of two candidates in the race who has served as both a governor and a member of Congress. He was chairman of the House Budget Committee during the only time period in recent memory when Congress actually balanced the budget. As governor of Ohio, he helped turn a shortfall into a surplus.

Kasich’s leadership of Ohio is also important because it’s a diverse state that’s neither red nor blue, which is why it’s one of the few states that matter anymore in the Electoral College, and why no Republican has ever been elected without winning it. Unfortunately, Kasich was on the end of the debate stage Tuesday, not the middle with the frontrunners, and he did not do well.

The debate format also has not been kind to the other governor on the main stage Tuesday, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But because we’re acting like human resources directors and not reality TV show-watchers, we’re not so worried about that. Instead, we’re looking at Bush’s resume, which says he was a two-term governor of one of the nation’s most populous states. Florida is also a diverse state with, like America, a large Hispanic population. As governor, Bush once had to respond to four hurricanes in 44 days, the kind of crisis presidents face.

Three other governors will be on Arkansas voters’ ballots come March 1: the state’s own Mike Huckabee, who spent a decade in office; Gov. Chris Christie, who as a Republican governor of a blue state must work with Democrats to get anything done; and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who has served in Congress and then served two terms as governor of Louisiana, where he responded as an executive to both Hurricane Gustav and the BP oil spill.

On the Republican side, five senators will be on the ballot: Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

I’m placing experience in the Senate below experience as governor. While senators deal with national issues, the buck does not stop with them. They are not required to administer much, and with the way Congress works these days, they don’t have to accomplish much, either. Rubio, Cruz and Paul all are eloquent spokesmen for their points of view, but, like then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, they all are serving their first terms in the Senate. Graham, who is in his third term after previously serving in the House of Representatives, is by far the most qualified, but he wasn’t even invited to this last set of debates because of his low poll numbers.

That leaves the three outsiders: Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, all of whom are accomplished individuals even though they have no experience in holding elected office. As human resources directors, we voters might or might not decide to go with our guts and bring in one of these three from the outside to shake things up.

But that should not become a habit. Ideology, personality, perceived character, and ability to inspire – all of those matter a lot. But experience and qualifications shouldn’t be irrelevant. As democracy’s human resources directors, we ought to at least glance at the candidates’ resumes before hiring them for the job.

Senate race not yet unpredictable

By Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Politics in Arkansas is becoming increasingly predictable: In statewide races and in many legislative ones, bet on the candidates with an “R” beside their names. The past week or so, things became, if not unpredictable, then at least mildly interesting in the U.S. Senate race.

On Nov. 4., the latest Arkansas Poll sponsored by the University of Arkansas’ Diane D. Blair Center of Southern Politics and Society revealed these numbers about U.S. Sen. John Boozman: 38 percent of respondents approved of his job performance, 18 percent disapproved, and 44 percent had no opinion or refused to answer the question.

It was the first and the last numbers that raised some eyebrows – particularly the last. That 38 percent approval rating is a little low. More striking is the fact that Boozman has been in the Senate for five years and in office for 14, and yet 44 percent of respondents don’t have much of an opinion about him. Arkansas’ other senator, Tom Cotton, who won his first race in 2012, had a 45-27 approval rating with 29 percent not knowing or refusing to answer.

The next day, CNN.com published a story saying national Republican Party leaders are becoming concerned that Boozman raised less money in the last quarter than did his 38-year-old Democratic challenger, former U.S. attorney Conner Eldridge.

Of course the Eldridge campaign tried to make hay with these two stories. Meanwhile, the day of the CNN.com story, I was called at home by an automated telephone survey asking about a hypothetical matchup between Boozman and former Lt. Governor Bill Halter, who forced Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff in the 2010 Senate race. Halter did not respond to a request for an interview and it’s unclear who sponsored the survey, but someone seemed to be testing a Halter candidacy. For whatever reason, he’s not running.

Then on Nov. 9, the last day of the filing period, businessman Curtis Coleman filed to run against Boozman in the Republican Party primary. Coleman said he had been encouraged by supporters to run, and when he challenged them late last week to raise enough money to cover his filing fee before the end of the weekend, they responded by donating more than $20,000. Coleman said the conservative but low-key Boozman isn’t conservative enough and is not enough of a fighter.

Libertarian Frank Gilbert, who won 2 percent of the vote running for governor in 2014, also will be on the ballot.

All of this is worth a column, but is it enough for Boozman to be worried? Probably not any more than any incumbent with challengers should be.

This will be Coleman’s third statewide race. In 2010, he won 5 percent of the vote in an eight-candidate primary won by Boozman without a runoff. In 2014, Coleman won 27 percent in the Republican primary running for governor against now-Gov. Asa Hutchinson. Coleman said he now has statewide name identification and a grassroots network, but so does Boozman, and he’s the incumbent.

The Democrats’ Eldridge is an attractive young candidate with a crime-fighting resume, family connections, and personal wealth, but he has a “D” by his name and was appointed to his post by President Obama. Republicans will make a huge deal of that.

As for those 38-18-44 numbers, Boozman can work with those. Twice as many like him as don’t, and he will have millions of dollars to court that 44 percent who don’t have much of an opinion about him. When only “very likely” voters are counted, his support increases to 44 percent. (Cotton’s increases to 51 percent.) At this point three years ago, Sen. Mark Pryor’s numbers in the Arkansas Poll were much worse: 33-41 approval-disapproval, with 26 percent having no opinion or not answering. He lost to Cotton.

Meanwhile, Democrats are fielding candidates in only one of the state’s four U.S. House races. In the 2nd District, former Little Rock School Board member Dianne Curry filed Monday to run against incumbent U.S. Rep. French Hill, a Republican. Hill also faces a primary opponent, Brock Olree, and a Libertarian challenger, Chris Hayes.

So things will be mildly interesting but still predictable: Arkansas’ congressional delegation in 2017 probably will look exactly as it does now. Then again, that’s a prediction, not a prophecy. There’s still an election to be had.

Sorry, no complaints today

By Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Watched the main Republican debate on CNBC Wednesday. This is the part where I’m supposed to complain about something. How about I not do that?

The debate featured the top 10 polling candidates and was preceded by a previous debate featuring another four.

This is a strong Republican field – maybe the strongest in memory. Those 14 candidates included two business leaders, a neurosurgeon, five current senators and one former one, and five current or former governors. While they all support smaller government, they are quite different – in background, in temperament, and in beliefs. One of the candidates is African-American, one is a woman, and three are the sons of immigrants – in two cases, Cuba, and in the other, India. One is the son of a former president and brother of another, but he must ask for our votes just as they did.

Over the course of an evening, these 14 ambitious high achievers stood in front of the American people, presented their ideas and qualifications, and asked for our votes. There were inaccuracies, of course, and promises based on bad math. But there were also substantive arguments based on detailed policy positions, and there was passion based on true belief.

Policies come and go. What’s more important is the process. The candidates disagreed, and it’s almost certain that some of them don’t like each other. But no one was going to draw a sword or stage, or amass their armies to seize power. The candidates faced challenging questions from moderators who had no reason to fear them, and they spoke before an audience that acted with restraint but felt free to express its approval and disapproval.

The Democrats’ slate of candidates is, unfortunately, thinner, the party’s establishment having chosen to rally behind one candidate early in the process. But it should be noted that the one candidate could be the first female president. Meanwhile, her main challenger is a person who is not a member of a political party and calls himself a socialist. Think I’m insulting him? I’m not. Regardless of what one thinks about his label, it’s good that voters are getting a chance to consider his ideas.

Please take a moment and consider the alternatives under which many people have lived in the past and under which many live today. The obvious example is Syria, which is engulfed in a religious civil war with many sides. ISIS is attempting to install a Muslim caliphate through tools such as beheading people based on their religion. The Assad government maintains power by dropping crude barrel bombs that kill indiscriminately. No wonder that war has produced more than 4 million refugees, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In China, 1.4 billion people are ruled by a Communist Party that, this week, decided to double its previous limit and allow families to have two children instead of just one. It holds onto power by promising unending economic growth, a promise it cannot possibly keep. North Koreans worship their leader or face the consequences.

Of course the American system is less than it should be. Of course it’s often corrupted by money and ego and partisanship. Of course problems are not being solved. Of course the media can be irresponsible and annoying.

But there has to be some balance between seeing all the flaws and seeing only flaws. Can’t there be something between naive and pessimistic? How about “optimistically realistic”?

The late writer David Foster Wallace told the story of two young fish who were met by an older fish swimming in the opposite direction. “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” said the older fish. After swimming a ways, one of the young fish looked at his buddy and said, “What’s water?”

The idea is that we can become so accustomed to our surroundings that we don’t realize they exist. The same is true for we who have lived in a society that is imperfect but, in the history of human existence, amazingly free and prosperous. What’s freedom? Most of us don’t know, because we haven’t experienced the opposite.

I don’t know, either. But I think it has something to do with my future president standing on a stage armed only with ideas and qualifications and asking for my vote, and my deciding whether or not to give it. Sorry, no complaints today.

Lead, listen or both?

By Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

“Look, I imagine that there’s theoretically a chance that (we) all went from being radical extremist crazies to Washington sellouts in 12 hours. But maybe a more likely narrative is that we really think that this is a good step for the conservative movement.”

That quote, published in the Washington Post, came from Rep. Mike Mulvaney, R-South Carolina.

Mulvaney is a member of the Freedom Caucus, the group of about 40 conservative Republican congressmen whose demands led to the resignation of Speaker of the House John Boehner. Some thought the group was being too combative and expecting too much. That’s where the “crazies” part comes from.

Most threw their support behind Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, whose plenty conservative but also willing to work with the other party, which the speaker of the House must do. When that happened, some of the same people – particularly talk radio hosts and bloggers – who were cheering about Boehner threw a fit because they didn’t like Ryan. That’s when the Freedom Caucus became “sellouts.”

I’m writing this not to defend the Freedom Caucus, but because the quote brought to mind the age-old question: How much should members of Congress lead, and how much should they listen?

The answer, of course, is that they should do both. And when those two realities conflict?

Maybe Benjamin Franklin can help. At the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was leaving Independence Hall when, according to Bartleby.com, a woman asked him, “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin required, “A republic if you can keep it.”

Franklin notably did not say “A democracy,” because that is not what the Founding Fathers created. In a democracy, voters make the decisions about their government. In a republic, they elect people to make those decisions, and then oversee them.

There are many wise sayings about letting your conscious be your guide, and not many about seeking only to please others. That’s because no one can twist in the wind forever before finally being blown away.

The same applies to politics. Members of Congress must listen to constituents, but it’s their name on the door. Arkansas’ four U.S. House members each represent 750,000 people, and Sens. Tom Cotton and John Boozman represent three million. We’re all different, we don’t always know what we want, and sometimes we want too much. We want less government but more government services, with lower taxes. We tend to want freedom, but not so much for those different than we. Two polls about the same issue – but with slightly different wording – can create vastly different results.

A few suggestions, then, for lawmakers.

– Don’t make many promises, particularly when those promises make it harder to accomplish more important goals. Pledges signed as candidates promising to never fill-in-the-blank can be counterproductive. Sometimes you can get a lot by giving a little – but you have to give a little nonetheless. Change takes time.

– Recognize the difference between right and wrong, and correct and less correct. For example, if a lawmaker really believes that abortion or capital punishment are murder, they should take a stand. Whether the top income tax rate should be a few percentage points in one direction or the other? There’s probably an ideal number, but no one knows what that is, and the country can be wrong either way and still be prosperous. If constituents can’t accept that, then they’re just wrong. If a congressman violates his deepest convictions, he is.

– Remember that hard-core true believers with time on their hands tend to speak a lot louder than people busy raising their kids and working for a living.

– Be willing to lead and lose. Somebody’s got to say that we can’t spend money we don’t have. Make the tough calls, and if the voters choose someone else as a result, so be it.

– Be willing to leave. We all can become a little corrupted by our jobs. We’re at our best when we’ve gained experience but not yet become stale or jaded.

And the rest of us? The latest Gallup poll has Congress with a 13 percent approval rating, yet 95 percent of House members were re-elected in 2014. The Senate was a little more competitive at 82 percent. In Arkansas in 2014, voter turnout was barely over 50 percent of registered voters.

Congressmen must listen. It helps when voters speak, without yelling, with a little thoughtful consistency, and most clearly at the ballot box.

Why the GOP loses in a shutdown

By Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

There’s been talk of two potential government shutdowns: one this week over funding Planned Parenthood that’s probably not going to happen, and one in December if the government reaches the debt ceiling. Whenever a shutdown occurs, Republicans will be blamed more than Democrats. That’s because of the brand Republicans themselves have created.

Branding is the process of creating a simple identity for a product, service or idea. It involves the entire organization’s efforts, from the product itself to the packaging to the advertising. Done correctly, it produce a powerful association with certain values and lifestyles (think Harley Davidson), overcoming temporary obstacles and even contrary facts.

How powerful is branding? At the beginning of the computer revolution, Apple branded itself as the company that sold easy-to-use personal computers. Its business model, however, was inferior to Microsoft’s, which copied Apple’s products and then made them widely available through Windows and Office. Apple almost went out of business.

Then Apple began a marketing campaign based on two words, “Think Different,” and introduced a series of revolutionary products and services, including the iPod, iTunes and the iPhone. In each case, Microsoft offered the same things, but none of them enjoyed great success. By then Apple didn’t just sell computer products; it sold thinking differently, while Microsoft just sold Windows and Office. Apple now is the world’s largest tech company.

But branding can backfire, as is currently the case with McDonald’s. For decades, McDonald’s branded itself as the place for a fast, inexpensive, tasty meal. It was the restaurant for families and kids. Its spokesman was a clown.

That brand still works with a lot of Americans, but for many, including many younger consumers, what once was considered inexpensive is now just cheap, and what once was considered a treat is now just fattening. Many American consumers would rather spend $8 for a better hamburger than spend $5 for a Big Mac. McDonald’s has tried to offer an upgraded menu, but it hasn’t caught on. If you have $8 to spend, you don’t spend it at McDonald’s.

Since 1980, Republicans have been better at branding than Democrats. Their message – “Less government” – fits neatly on a bumper sticker. Democrats, on the other hand, have been unable to sum up their message so succinctly. They don’t want to say they support a more activist government, so instead they’ve often simply branded themselves the “not Republican Party.” They need a better message. But that’s another column.

Whenever the government shuts down, it’s the result of decisions made by both parties. If the government were to shut down this week – which, as of this writing, it probably won’t – it would be because the Republicans forced the issue over Planned Parenthood. But Democrats also would be at fault. Republicans last week offered legislation that would run the government without funding Planned Parenthood, and Democrats blocked it.

But because of the two parties’ brands, whenever the government shuts down, casual observers of course will blame the Republicans. Who else would shut down the government but the anti-government party? Why would the Democrats shut down something they support?

At first, government shutdowns don’t have much of an effect. National parks close, but Americans can live without them for a while. Paychecks aren’t sent, so government workers take a few days off.

Over time, however, shutdowns start to sting. Paychecks are missed. National priorities go unfunded. Families cancel their once-in-a-lifetime trip to Washington, D.C., because the museums are closed. Credit agencies talk about downgrading the government’s rating. While anonymous members of Congress bicker from their little seats, the president steps off Air Force One and tells them it’s time to do their jobs.

Eventually, the anti-government activists capitulate, forced to concede that Uncle Sam really is necessary. The whole thing inevitably ends as a victory for big government. Then the blame games start.

A year before the election, voters would blame Republicans more than Democrats. Hillary Clinton’s campaign would tie the GOP nominee to the effort, knowing that, in the voting booth, casual voters tend to choose the party they think is least crazy.

So if Republicans force a government shutdown any time this year, they might as well call their efforts the “Hillary Clinton Employment Act.” When you’ve branded yourself the anti-government party, then you can’t use a government shutdown as a tactic. It looks a little clownish, which, as McDonald’s will tell you, isn’t working so well right now.