by Herman Cain
Winning the war on terror.
Winning the war on our moral foundation.
Winning the war on our economic infrastructure.
Bitter disputes and partisan gridlock arise over what is considered winning and what is considered important. Our Founding Fathers believed in country first, self-interests second, and political parties a distant third. Unfortunately, too many politicians today have these priorities reversed. Many current political leaders place the interests of their political party first, to the detriment of the best interests of the country. Three hundred million people will never agree 100 percent on everything, but we can agree on a few big things with the right priorities. That's when we all win.
The Republicans and the Democrats suffer from a deficiency of effective leadership--not all of their leaders, but most of their leaders. Leadership requires removing barriers to self-motivation, working on the right problems, and inspiring people to feel connected to the right results. The most successful businesses understand this. The political parties do not. This was the most glaring observation I made as a result of actually running for the U.S. Senate with a personal history of thirty-five years as a businessman.
As the parties' tents get wider, more barriers are created that drive people out or keep them away. The candidates who get elected to Congress quickly lose focus and spend a lot of time working on the wrong problems. Worse, they are forced into trying to fix some of the wrong solutions to the wrong problems of the past. The best example is the Social Security system. It has been broken for decades, and we are still not anywhere close to fixing it. One of my opponents, a congressman, said, "Congress does not act until there's a crisis." I wonder what the definition of a crisis is in Congress when we are talking about the Social Security system. Someone is in gross denial.
Both political parties routinely create barriers to voter self-motivation by working on the wrong problems. Working on the wrong problems makes it impossible to inspire voters. The most recent example is the prescription drug bill. Even though some in Congress will tout how much this legislation helped Grandma save on prescription drugs, Leroy and Bessie intuitively know that $544 billion spent on a one-size-fits-all program will eventually backfire. The right solution in this case would have been to establish an assistance program for the 20 percent of seniors who had no prescription drug coverage. According to the Heritage Foundation, with the right cost containment incentives this solution would have cost a little more than one hundred billion dollars.
The Republicans try to inspire voters on principle. The principle that workers should keep more of their hard-earned money is a good example. This is achieved through tax cuts on income and investments, which stimulate the economy, which pays for existing jobs and new jobs, and which makes it possible for businesses to pay workers even more money. This principle is called elementary economics. Unfortunately, elementary economics gets lost in the clutter of strong emotional rhetoric and distortions. As a result, many people disregard the principle of elementary economics when deciding for whom to cast their vote.
The usual Democrat strategy of inspiring voters is to invoke class warfare, which is often packaged with race baiting, victimization, and fear. We have heard hundreds of times the rhetoric "It is just a tax cut for the rich," or the promise by a candidate to somehow "Take from the rich and give it to those who need it." The Democrats are certainly not going to tell people, "You should keep less of your hard-earned money. We want the government to take more of your money, which is achieved through tax increases, which stifles the economy, which reduces jobs, and which causes businesses to pay fewer people even less money, or even cause businesses to go out of business."
In the early history of this nation, an honest candidate could inspire people with an honest message from a town square, the back of a train, or a real town hall meeting. Today, principle and honesty can get lost in the around-the-clock sound bites produced in the fast-paced media and political advertising world. As a result, more and more people are unable or do not take the time to connect the dots to find the truth and make an informed voting decision. Professional politicians know this and exploit it to their advantage.
Political leaders have many opportunities to inspire people to vote. People want to be informed and inspired. They want to connect to issues intellectually and emotionally. Voters want to know how an issue affects them, their families, and the nation. If voters do not see how an issue personally affects them and their families, they will not feel connected to the message or the messenger.
The debate surrounding repeal of the federal estate tax provides a great example. Until recently, most African-Americans felt no connection to this debate because they did not have any estates to pass on to their heirs. My great-grandparents were sharecroppers who owned no land, no homes, and no businesses. They had no sellable assets other than their own sweat equity. When my maternal great-grandfather died at the age of ninety-four, the estate he left his family was his good name and his reputation. Three generations later, my brother and I were part of the first generation of college graduates in our family and, in my case, a successful restaurant business owner. Many other African-American families share a similar story. A large and growing percentage of African-Americans have achieved some financial success, which has produced a personal connection to arguments for eliminating the estate tax.
The current estate tax does not merely "tax the rich" as the Democratic Party has argued for years. It causes farmers to have to sell the farm to try to save the farm and unfairly diminishes the ability to pass first-generation success on to the next generation in a family. A lifetime of hard work and risk-taking should not go to the government, but to one's family.
Another example is restructuring Social Security versus putting another band-aid on the system. When I addressed a group of African-American ministers in Fitzgerald, Georgia, I stated, "The Social Security structure is bad for everybody, but it is worse for Black people." I explained that because of the average life expectancy for Black men--sixty-eight years, versus seventy-five years for Whites--Blacks can expect on average only a few years of low benefits from the Social Security system.
The current Social Security structure is broken and has been for decades, and it is headed for certain bankruptcy. Social Security must be totally restructured. It does not make sense to pay into a broken structure for more than forty years only to receive minimal benefits for four or five years. For too long, though, Blacks and millions of others have been told that Republicans want to rob their Social Security benefits and give the money to the rich in the form of tax cuts. Of course, this deceptive rhetoric could not be farther from the truth.
One of the ministers stood up and challenged the group to spread this information throughout their communities. Others nodded in agreement. Another minister asked why they had not heard these statistics before. I responded that "they" did not want them to know these facts. The ministers had now made an intellectual and emotional connection to the issue of restructuring Social Security.
The fact that more than half of all registered voters in the United States do not exercise their right to vote shows that a higher than acceptable percentage of the electorate is uninformed and uninspired about the issues and government. An uninformed electorate is particularly susceptible to fear-based rhetoric, and they tend to believe negative messages. Information counteracts fear-based rhetoric, and compelling facts counteract negative messages.
The Politics of Politics
The professional politicians from both political parties in Congress spend too much time engaging in the "politics of politics" instead of honestly representing their constituents and working to enact policies that will protect the economic infrastructure for our grandchildren. The politics of politics are activities that tend to do more to improve a politician's campaign war chest and his or her political career than actually to find solutions to the biggest issues that confront us.
One example of politicians spend
ing time on the politics of politics is when a senator or representative promises his or her vote on a piece of legislation in return for the guarantee of a big (pork barrel) appropriation for his or her district. Other examples abound. Instead of showing leadership in Congress by working on enacting aggressive policy solutions, many representatives tell their constituents and the media, "I co-sponsored legislation" or "I introduced legislation" that addresses a particular issue. The real question is, "How hard did you work to get the legislation passed?"
Other members like to remove themselves symbolically from Congress when addressing their constituents or the media. They will defend their inaction by saying, "Congress is always in gridlock" or "There are people up there who just want to block everything. I'm fighting for you, but it is tough to take on 534 others who also want bills passed."
These excuses are laughable given that every year, members of Congress seem to have no problem working with each other when it comes time to send billions of our tax dollars back to their districts for projects that should be funded at the state and local levels. Every minute and every day members of Congress spend engaged in the politics of politics is an opportunity lost to work on the real issues that confront us, such as replacing the federal tax code and restructuring the Social Security system. Time spent on the politics of politics allows Congress to avoid tackling the big, often controversial issues, thereby increasing their chances for reelection.
The politics of politics differ greatly from the politics of business. In business, your performance is evaluated every day, every fiscal quarter, and every year. Businessmen place results ahead of politics. Politicians place politics ahead of results.
Business executives and small business owners are in constant competition for consumers' dollars and must answer to their constituents--consumers--or they will soon be out of business. With a few exceptions, most businesses must meet their consumers' demands, provide the highest levels of customer service, and provide a high-quality product.
Members of Congress need to accept that voters are not turned off by the ideas of replacing the tax code, restructuring Social Security, and protecting our moral foundations. They are turned off to the legislative process by politicians who are afraid to lead on these big issues. Voters want issue leadership, not squeamish politicians who would rather trade votes for pork and make constant excuses.
As a chief executive officer (CEO) or small business owner, you may be tempted to hire someone you have known, is a friend, or looks like you. But you also understand that you must hire and promote the most qualified people, regardless of how they look or your familiarity with them, to meet your business goals and survive. Voters need to consider themselves responsible CEOs of this country and take ownership in their government every election day. Voters have the responsibility to monitor the activities of their elected leaders and ensure that only those politicians who have demonstrated aggressive issue leadership are awarded the privilege to represent their state or districts for another term. Voters can end the politics of politics that diminish our chances to tackle the big issues, but only if they become more responsible owners of their government and the political process.
Lessons of 1994
The "Republican Revolution" of 1994 gave Republicans a fifty-two-seat pickup in the U.S. House of Representatives and made the Democrats the House minority party for the first time in forty years. Democrats could not accept the reality of defeat at that time, and they struggle with being the minority party to this day.
In 1994, I spent a lot of time in Washington, D.C. when I served as chairman of the National Restaurant Association. A Georgia Democratic congressman and fellow Morehouse College alumni and friend called me shortly after the Republican takeover. We talked and agreed to meet for lunch. A few days later we went to one of his favorite lunch spots--a Washington, D.C. church that serves great Southern cooking. On the way to lunch, I asked the congressman how he and his party were dealing with their new status as minority in the U.S. House. He sort of dropped his head for a second and said, "We don't have control anymore. We don't have control anymore." Several times during lunch he repeated, "We don't have control anymore."
I said to him, "You are in Washington to represent all the constituents in your district, both Republicans and Democrats. You and your party are not in control anymore, but do you really think the Republicans are going to turn out to be some sort of devils just because they are now in control after forty years of Democratic control?"
Again, he repeated, "We're not in control anymore."
It was clear that the congressman and the members of his party did not know how to think, how to act, or how to compromise from a position that did not control Congress. They had never had to compromise with the majority, because for most of them they had always been that majority. In the last ten years as the minority party, the apparent strategy of the Democrats has been to obstruct, attack, and discredit any idea or proposal that is considered a Republican idea.
I asked a California congressman once why he could not support the idea of totally restructuring Social Security since the current system is clearly broken. He responded, "We can't do anything that might make President Bush and the Republicans look good." When did "for the good of the political party to regain control" overtake "for the good of the country and the people"? This Democratic strategy has driven many voters into the politically homeless zone.
In sharp contrast to the Democrats' expectations of "Republican devils" in control of Congress in 1994, the Republicans produced a positive, forward-thinking people's agenda called the Contract with America. Former Georgia congressman and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and his colleagues wrote the Contract with America prior to the 1994 elections. They voted on all ten of the contract's policy issues within the first one hundred days of the next legislative session and succeeded in passing nine. The contract was a clear policy agenda that focused on restoring in the U.S. House accountability to the public while reducing the size and influence of federal government. It focused on budget and spending restraint, personal responsibility, and economic prosperity for individuals and businesses.
Perhaps the most important feature of the Contract with America was that it connected its policy initiatives to common sense benefits that Leroy and Bessie Public could understand. Speaker Gingrich was a leader who successfully communicated to the public that the Republicans were not going to squander their new majority status.
In the Contract with America, Republicans offered a focused policy agenda and escalated American political discourse about the proper influence of government. The Contract with America inspired millions of Americans to believe that significant policy changes were possible.
Democrats, however, relentlessly attacked Gingrich and the Republicans over the contract. The popularity of the contract, the swiftness with which its policies passed through the House, and Gingrich's leadership forced Democrats to go into an aggressive attack mode, where they remain to this day.
It can be argued that the Democrats' tactics produced some degree of success, as Speaker Gingrich was forced out of Congress by 1998. That same year, the Republican Party, which expected to gain House seats, showed the poorest results in thirty-four years of any party not in control of the White House. Gingrich resigned from the Speakership and from his House seat in November 1998. Republicans retained control of the House and do to this day. But the departure of Gingrich left a leadership void in the Republican-controlled Congress that to a large extent has not been replaced.
I believe the Republican Revolution stalled for two reasons. First, during Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker of the House, not enough other Republican members felt a sense of ownership in the Contract with America. My thirty-five years of experience in the business world taught me that owners run things better than managers. Managers who share an ownership attitude in an operation run things much better than managers who feel they are just employees. When people feel a sense of ownership, they ar
e much more motivated to achieve the desired results.
Since Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was president during most of the 1990s, Gingrich, as the highest-ranking elected Republican, was in many respects the face of the Republican Party nationally. It was easy for the political layperson to view the contract as "Newt's contract" instead of an agenda for the entire House Republican membership. Gingrich's departure in 1998 from the U.S. House therefore symbolized the departure of a clear Republican policy agenda.
The second reason the Republican Revolution stalled is that the Republican congressional majority became divided behind Newt's leadership. The Republicans were not solidly united behind Gingrich and his agenda in 1994, and many remain ideologically divided to this day. I believe this is due to the politics of politics, to which many longtime members of Congress have grown accustomed.
Gingrich received criticism from fellow Republicans when he negotiated in 1995 with President Clinton a reopening of the federal government. In addition, not all current House and Senate Republicans share the conservative wing's zeal for aggressive policy change. Many openly approve of increased federal spending and have moderate positions on social issues. Some Republicans formed the Republican Main Street Partnership, a group of moderates devoted to a centrist approach to law making.
The primary effect of the ideological divide is that the current Republican congressional majority lacks the ability to design a new, focused policy agenda similar to the Contract with America. Leaders of any organization must always challenge its constituency to focus on a new vision to keep the people inspired. Republican leaders fail to understand that they must demonstrate bold leadership by setting an aggressive policy agenda, formulate a strategy to pass that agenda, and explain the benefits of their agenda to voters in a compelling way.
