Would you vote for Joe?

By Steve Brawner

Would the following campaign ads be effective with you? I’m really asking.

In all of them, the congressional candidate – call him “Joe” – faces the camera before an unadorned white background. There’s no stirring music, no slow-motion photography, no phony interactions with average Americans, and no rehearsed kitchen table scenes with the family. No narrator describes his opponents ominously.

In a calm voice, Joe describes a serious, ongoing national challenge. Let’s say it’s the national debt. He says the country is $17.5 trillion in the hole – equal to well over $50,000 for every American. He says we’re willfully passing on this debt to our children, and it’s time to be bigger than this.

Then he says you’ll have a different choice this time. He won’t promise what he can’t deliver. If you elect him, he will go to Washington and make hard choices. He’ll also tell you what those choices are beforehand.

That’s all Joe can squeeze into 30 seconds.

In another ad, he tells you he’ll treat the nation’s finances like he would treat his own if they weren’t adding up. Years ago when he was broke, he had to reduce spending on everything. If he’s elected to Congress, everything will be on the table, including popular programs like Social Security, Medicare and the military. Those three, plus interest on the debt, make up three-fifths of the budget, so they can’t just be ignored. “We’re past the point of just cutting waste,” he says.

Has he lost you yet, or will you still give him a chance?

In another ad, Joe says the government is awash in so much red ink, and it’s made so many promises it can’t get out of, that the budget can’t be balanced without more revenues. The American people have made it clear they’ll only cut so far, and it’s not enough to balance the budget. He won’t vote to raise tax rates, but he will support cleaning up the tax code. He’ll go after fat-cat loopholes first, but he also favors changing other deductions with widespread support. Those would include the mortgage interest deduction, which he says encourages homebuyers to go into too much debt the way it’s structured now. When the budget is balanced and the national debt is being paid down, he’ll start voting to cut taxes.

In both ads, he says he’ll listen to your concerns and be open to compromise. But you can trust that he will never pander to you, and he won’t vote to put our children in ever deeper debt. “Americans will pay our own way from now on,” he says.

Joe runs one more ad pledging not to run a single negative commercial, and if outside interest groups do so in his favor, he’ll denounce them. You’ll elect him for the right reasons, or he’ll just have to lose. His Bible taught him not to bear false witness against his neighbor, and his mama taught him that if you can’t say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.

Joe has offered specific proposals for addressing a compelling national problem. You probably won’t agree with all of them, and some may even offend you.

But would you prefer a candidate who tells you nothing, offers “solutions” that don’t solve anything, and explains every problem by blaming the other party? The political professionals who produce most of today’s ads are certain you would.

Ross Perot campaigned for president sort of like what I’ve described using 30-minute ads, not just 30-second ones. In 1992, he used charts to lay out the country’s financial situation. Back then, the debt was $4 trillion – less than a fourth what it is now. He won 19 percent of the vote as a third party candidate.

But he was a billionaire. If Joe’s not rich, I’m not certain he could even raise the money to get on the air.

If he could, could you vote for Joe?

Pryor’s prior positions on Social Security, Medicare

By Steve Brawner

In one of Sen. Mark Pryor’s latest campaign ads, a Little Rock woman named Linda looks into the camera from her kitchen table and calls his opponent, Rep. Tom Cotton, “a real threat to your retirement” because he has voted to turn Medicare into a voucher system and has voted to raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 70.

She’s right about at least the voucher part. Forcing seniors to buy private insurance with help from a government check is a bad idea.

But the part about raising the retirement age for Social Security? At least one other elected official has mentioned it as a potential solution – Sen. Mark Pryor.

In an interview in 2011 with the KTTS television station in southwest Arkansas, Pryor was asked what should be done about Social Security. He responded that the program is “very, very fixable. And again if people would get serious about this in Washington, we could fix Social Security next week if we wanted to.”

One possible fix? “Probably the biggest change would be is you would take my kids’ generation, teenagers today,” he said, “and life expectancy’s longer, etc., and probably say that they couldn’t get Social Security until they turn 68 or 69. If you just did that one change, you’d fix about 80 percent of it right there.”

You can see it on YouTube.

That was not the only time Pryor discussed making changes to popular entitlement programs. In 2010, he offered an amendment that would have established a limit on federal spending and created a presidential debt commission. His amendment would not have excluded Social Security and Medicare. “We need to put 100 percent of everything on the table,” the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported him saying.

Pryor was being honest about the problems the country faces, and honesty is the crucial first step to finding solutions.

And he wasn’t done. On Jan. 5, 2011, he told the Little Rock Rotary Club that he supported many of the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform – known for its sometimes politically unpopular prescriptions.

“We have to take a hard look at entitlement programs, including the sacred cows of Medicare and Social Security, and admit that we cannot bring our spending into balance without changes in these programs,” he said, according to the Arkansas News Bureau. He also said, “The solution will be painful. There is no easy way out. Everything must be on the table.”

Three-and-a-half months later, Pryor told the Political Animals Club in Little Rock that he wanted his legacy to be addressing the national debt. That required making difficult decisions about programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

“My view on the debt is that it is beyond politics,” he said, according to the Democrat-Gazette. “This isn’t about the next general election; it’s about the next generation.”

That was three years ago. Pryor’s campaign isn’t talking much about painful solutions or the next generation now. Instead, he’s being positioned as the defender of the status quo.

That’s smart politics, but it’s not good for the national discourse. Campaigns are a conversation about the direction of the country, not just a time to pick winners and losers. They set the tone for how Congress governs afterwards. If campaigns lead voters to believe that Medicare and Social Security are perfectly fine, it makes it harder for members of Congress to make politically tough choices during the rare occasions when they actually govern after the election.

This isn’t to say that Pryor is a hypocrite. Campaigns rarely ennoble anyone. We voters have set the ground rules, and one of the rules is simple: Don’t give us the bad news.

But despite what his campaign ads are implying, even Pryor knows there really are problems with Social Security and Medicare. He said so repeatedly in 2010 and 2011. Those problems are fixable, but only if we acknowledge they exist.

 

Values debate divides parties, country

By Steve Brawner

The partisan differences separating many Americans aren’t just about policies like Obamacare or the national debt. According to one of America’s most influential pollsters, they’re also about something much deeper – religious values.

The pollster, Dr. Frank Luntz, is one of the Republican Party’s most important figures during the past two decades. He’s used thousands of polls and focus group sessions to measure voter attitudes to help Republicans craft their message. For example, he found that Americans support the “estate tax” but not the “death tax,” even though the terms describe the same thing. Republican candidates have been calling it a “death tax” ever since.

About a year ago, Luntz conducted a poll of 2,000 Americans. Respondents were given two choices to the question, “Which would be better for America and our future?” Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said, “Embracing and promoting a more tolerant, open-minded perspective on faith, religion and values.” The other 21 percent said, “A renewed commitment to the Judeo-Christian values and principles upon which this nation was founded.”

Among Republicans, the response was exactly the opposite, as 79 percent supported a renewed commitment to traditional values and 21 percent wanted more tolerance. Add the two parties together, and the ratio was 53 percent for more tolerance and 47 percent for traditional values.

“This is why we don’t get along. This is why we can’t connect,” Luntz said in a speech sponsored by the Milken Institute that can be viewed on YouTube.

In response to a question from the audience, Luntz blamed politicians for deliberately dividing Americans, and while that’s certainly true, this goes much deeper than political rhetoric. The two parties are split over values because Americans are split.

This explains why certain Americans have such visceral reactions to certain politicians. President George W. Bush increased the size of government, which Republicans say they oppose. But he got a pass from many conservative Americans, at least while he was in office, in part because he always seemed to represent traditional Judeo-Christian values. Many liberals disdained him even though, based on his policies, they should have had mixed feelings. President Obama, meanwhile, always seems to represent the supposedly more tolerant perspective. Because of that, many conservatives will never give him a chance, while many liberals will be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If Luntz’s numbers are accurate, it will be difficult for presidents to broaden their appeal based on their policies. For example, during Obama’s first term his administration deported illegal immigrants much more aggressively than previous administrations. Think that made him a hero of the right? “Bringing the country together” will be next to impossible except after an extreme national emergency such as the Sept. 11 attacks.
Many Americans always will assume a president doesn’t share their values based on a party label, which leads to this question: How can anyone govern a country that’s divided not just politically but religiously? It hasn’t worked out elsewhere where that’s the case.

The values divide between the two parties may become even wider. It’s likely that many of the 21 percent of Democrats favoring traditional values live in the heartland, and that some of them will decide to be Republicans before too long, as they have in Arkansas. I’m thinking the 21 percent of pro-tolerance Republicans tend to live on the East and West Coasts. How much longer before some of them switch?

The good news is that more Americans than ever consider themselves neither Republican nor Democrat but independent, according to a 2013 Gallup Poll. On the other hand, most independents lean toward one party or the other.

By the way, Luntz is working a lot less politics these days. He’s doing more corporate and TV work and recently sold a majority interest in his company. According to a January article in The Atlantic, he became depressed after Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012. He also became discouraged by his many conversations with Americans, who he says are too angry, too dependent on the government, and too unwilling to consider opinions differing from theirs.

He was discouraged because we’re so divided. I’m not sure how we can’t be.

Walkers seek a home for every waiting child

iWalk for Waiting pic

Near midfield at Little Rock’s War Memorial Stadium Saturday stood displayed the photos of 140 children. Their ages and races differed, and the snapshots revealed their unique personalties. But they had this in common: They all are waiting to be adopted.

The Arkansas Heart Gallery is a coordinated effort involving the Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services and Project Zero, an organization seeking a home for every child in Arkansas who needs one. Project Zero’s slogan is “Imagine a world where 1+1 = 0.”

Project Zero founder Christie Erwin, who has fostered 50 children and adopted two, said the Heart Gallery personalizes the issue in a way that statistics cannot. More photos are coming thanks to volunteer professional photographers across the state.

“The exciting thing is when we’re taking kids out,” she said. “Like this morning, as we were setting it up, there was a little guy that was placed this week, so we took his picture out.”

The Heart Gallery was on display Saturday as part of the Walk for the Waiting, an annual event that raises money and awareness of the need for adoptive and foster families. The event has raised $186,000 so far, according to its website Tuesday. (Click on walkforthewaiting.org to donate.)

Along with Project Zero, the Walk is sponsored by two other organizations. One of those is The Call, which trains prospective adoptive and foster families and, like Project Zero, mobilizes churches to take up the cause. The other is Immerse Arkansas, which manages four houses for young people who are aging out of the foster system without ever finding a family.

About 3,900 children are currently in foster care in Arkansas, and about 7,700 spend some time in the system annually. Parental rights for 615 children were terminated last year. Those kids are the waiting.

Without much media fanfare, a church-based movement is making real progress in recruiting adoptive and foster families. Adoptions in Arkansas increased from 601 in 2010 to 677 last year thanks in part to these group’s efforts. One in four foster families in Arkansas was originally recruited by The CALL, which operates in 29 counties and is about to add three more, according to Executive Director Lauri Currier.

“Not everybody is called to foster or adopt, but everybody’s called to care,” she said in an interview somewhere near midfield. “Everybody’s called to do something.”

Nathan and Amy James of North Little Rock are among those doing something. After seeing a CALL video at church, they began fostering children and then adopted three, all sisters or half-sisters. Last year, the family raised the most of any Walk for the Waiting participants – $10,000 thanks to a series of Facebook videos where people declared, “No more waiting!” This year, life’s busyness and a balky computer hindered their efforts, but they still have raised $4,000.

They are giving their adoptive daughters opportunities they otherwise wouldn’t have had. But Nathan said having a diverse family also has benefited their biological children.

“We’re showing them sacrificial love,” he said. “We’re showing them what it’s like to sacrifice for someone else at a young age, that we think it’s important.”

Immerse Arkansas, meanwhile, helps never-adopted young people transition into adulthood. Founder Eric Gilmore said his clients, robbed of a stable home life during their childhood, sometimes lack purpose and motivation. But those traits can be learned, as they were by one young man who became involved in Immerse as an 18-year-old.

“He’s 21 now. A few weeks ago, he moved into his own place, and he’s working two jobs, paying for all his bills, taking care of his own needs and has surprised himself,” Gilmore said.

Gilmore told walkers that he hopes Immerse Arkansas is put out of business someday. That would only happen if every child has a family.

Can you imagine a world like that, where 1+1=0? Actually, I know some people who do more than imagine.

A long shot campaigns for U.S. Senate

Armies of people are being paid to elect Sen. Mark Pryor or Rep. Tom Cotton to the U.S. Senate – campaign workers, political consultants, pollsters, state party staff, political action committee employees, etc.

Nathan LaFrance’s wife, on the other hand, designed his logo for his website.

LaFrance, 35, a Libertarian from Bella Vista, is also running for the Senate, along with Green Party candidate Mark Swaney of Huntsville. In a recent poll by Talk Business and Hendrix College, they each polled at 2 percent.

Pryor and Cotton spend most of their waking hours trying to win the election. Their taxpayer-supported offices enable them to campaign on a nearly full-time basis when Congress is not in session.

LaFrance doesn’t campaign until he comes home from his job at the Walmart home offices in Bentonville. He spends several hours each night doing campaign legwork and searching the internet for potential supporters and speaking opportunities. He says he’s spoken less than half a dozen times, but he did speak along with other candidates before a big crowd at Ashdown a couple of weeks ago.

His message is the same as his party’s. Libertarians would cut taxes along with spending on government programs, which sounds like Republicanism, but Libertarians would reduce government much more, including spending on the military. Their less-government philosophy extends to social issues. LaFrance, unlike Cotton or Pryor, supports gay marriage. He’s hoping that issue will win him support that ordinarily would go to Democrats.

The major parties, he said, “are two peas in a pod. They may have different special interest groups that they’re catering to, but they’re both in Washington catering to those special interest groups.”

With their millions of dollars in campaign contributions, Pryor and Cotton can flood the airwaves and the internet with ads. So can the groups that support them. Half the time I click on a YouTube video, I’m greeted first by Jerry and Wanda from Marion telling me that Obamacare cost them their insurance policy. In fact, I clicked on a video before writing that sentence just to test it, and there they were.

LaFrance, meanwhile, said he has raised between $2,000 and $3,000 from friends, family and his own personal contributions. His total war chest is about what Pryor and Cotton each can raise in a single phone call, but it’s enough to start thinking about buying yard signs and bumper stickers. The list of Libertarian supporters in Arkansas is small, and if there’s a national network of big rich donors, he’s not aware of it. LaFrance pointed out that Libertarians oppose big money in politics anyway.

For a third party candidate, victory realistically would look something like what Libertarian Robert Sarvis did in the recent Virginia governor’s race. On Election Day, he collected 6.5 percent of the vote, but he polled above 10 percent during the race and raised enough money to run television ads.

But LaFrance isn’t hoping for 6.5 percent. He says if he can increase his campaign war chest past $5,000 and can start polling at 5 percent, interest would increase in his campaign, maybe causing a snowball effect.

“I entered this race knowing that it would be a statistical long shot to win,” he said, “but I’ve entered it with the goal of winning, and that’s still my goal. … My goal is to win, and if I don’t achieve that goal, it’s going to be a disappointment.”

It’s a really long shot, but at least voters will have choices in the Senate race. There are four names on the ballot, not two.