Anniversary Year

2012 has some historic events to remember. On April 12 it will be the 100^thanniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. Later in the summer will be the 100^thremembrance of the 1912 Olympic games triumph of the great Jim Thorpe, the only Native American ever to be declared by the King of Sweden the Greatest Athlete in the world and November will be the 100^thyear since Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party’s unsuccessful effort to win a third party effort for the Presidency.

The last event is especially nostalgic because Roosevelt was known as the “trust buster” for taking on the power of corporations to dominate our political system. He was a giant in the land of Lilliputians but just a hundred years later and the Lilliputians, with the aid of the Supreme Court have triumphed. Nothing is as graphic to demonstrate this fact as is the revolving carousel of Republican Presidential hopefuls, each with their own billionaire to fund their efforts.

The results so far is a political toxic dump of negative advertising, the merits of the candidates’ positions is lost in a tidal wave of ad-hominum attacks that leave the viewer questioning why that candidate is not in jail let alone running for President.

Now the issue of abortion, contraception and birth control has entered the dialogue. Trailing in the shadows is the whole issue of “personhood” the idea that any fertilized egg is at the moment of fertilization a “person” and thus protected by the laws against abortion. It does not matter if the fertilization was by rape or incest, the very occasion of an egg being penetrated by sperm at that moment becomes not a biological process but a divine act, an expression of the intent of God to make a human being.

In the middle ages there was a theory that the fertilized egg contained a complete miniaturized human person that was called a “homunculus” and thus was a human being in the view of the believers. It seems we are coming back to that point of view. Not so different from what happens when we get lost in the woods: we tend to wander in circles and eventually end up back where we started.

This brings us back to where we started. Already a great ocean liner has sunk off the coast of Europe, thankfully with 1,400 people rescued and not as with the Titanic lost. The Olympic Games will be held this summer and this fall there could be a third party candidate, but not one of Theodore Roosevelt’s stature. Instead of encouraging people to look beyond narrow self interest, the current group of discontented is one that encourages politicians to pander to the lowest and the slowest and asks no sacrifice to some higher ideal, lest the mob turn on them.

 On the darker side of our history in 1912 the KKK was in ascendancy and crimes were committed against some in the name of hatred and bigotry. This is an anniversary year but let us not make it an anniversary of Jim Crow and the hatred of 100 years ago.

— Pat Gogerty

The Dog and the Poor

As one who owns and loves his dog I found it difficult to reconcile Governor Romney’s treatment of his dog with a dog lover’s perspective of humane pet treatment.  But at the time I did not see how that incident fit into election year politics.

For those who do not remember the dog trip incident it seems that Governor Romney was taking a vacation with his family and the car was crowded with kids and camping stuff and they took their Irish Setter, Seamus, along by tying his dog carrier on the car roof and having Seamus ride up there. According to the Governor it was something Seamus was used to and enjoyed doing.

The journey was several hundred miles and during the trip Seamus experienced gastric distress to the point that liquid dog poop began trickling out and down the back window. When his children alerted their dad that Seamus was in trouble the Governor pulled the car off the road at a gas station and borrowed a hose took the dog and the carrier down and hosed them both off returned them to the roof and proceeded on. A good outcome for the family trip but not necessarily for Seamus, Such is the dog’s life. What does this have to do with the Presidential primary?

Yesterday the Governor said he is not concerned with the very poor or the very rich but rather with the vast “middle of America.” In his statement he said the very poor had a safety net and “if it is broken I will fix it.” The expeditious economy of effort implied in that statement harkened back to hosing off Seamus and cleaning up the dog carrier. There was an implied disconnect between the problem and the remedy, just as there had been between the cause of Seamus’s distress and the mechanics of cleaning up the result of his illness. The problems of the long term unemployed are not easily remedied.

 A word about long term unemployment and its impact on our social order: The idea of the dignity of work is so important to our cultural well-being. Not just the paycheck but the idea that one is making their own way, earning the food they eat, paying for the shelter they need, and by doing so achieving the cohesive family pride that is so necessary to a vibrant productive Democracy.

The negative impact of long term unemployment is well documented. There is a rhythm to one’s working life that unemployment destroys and thus causes a slow diminishment of one’s job readiness along with the self-esteem and confidence necessary to maintain a competitive edge. No, this is not “nanny state government” but a concerned and aware government that wants its society to remain strong and healthy. The impact of such extended unemployment is well documented and an understanding of those impacts should be included in any developed remedies.

Governor Romney is obviously a man of many virtues, but if he wants to be President he’d better polish up his pet transportation skills and awareness of the poor. 

— Pat Gogerty

Death by a Thousand Commercials

We have all heard the line about “death by a thousand cuts,” but in the Republican primary race it is “political destruction by a thousand negative commercials.”

It is a self evident truth that vitriol begets more vitriol until a trickle of negativity becomes a Niagara Falls of hateful political rhetoric. Sadly it is not new; Thomas Jefferson was attacked for his relationship with Sally Hemmings. Abraham Lincoln was caricatured as a baboon and during the cold war many were accused of being communist sympathizers. The end result of such campaigns of personal destruction leaves all of us wondering where it leads us as a nation.

During the cold war the United States and the Soviet Union practiced a foreign policy based on the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D. for short): the idea that life as we know it could be eradicated. This almost came to pass when the Russians tried to put nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962.

In 1968 during the Presidential campaign the concept was used as a threat against the North Vietnamese by third party vice-presidential candidate, retired air force General Curtis Lemay, when he said “we should bomb North Vietnam back to the stone age” using nuclear weapons. Today the Republican candidates are practicing the political equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction. When the eventual winner drags their lacerated political backside into the convention they will be forced to do a strategic one hundred and eighty degree turn or risk losing the election. Appealing to the darker angels of the primary voter will have to be discarded for more balance, positive language and attitude.

Looking at those still standing, one has perfected the deadly skill of political defamation and character vilification, and one is a reluctant dragon forced by the need to survive to counter each salvo of attack with an overwhelming counter attack. The net result of this process is to feed the anger of a small portion of the electorate while at the same time turning off a much greater number of the voters. Yes, negative advertising works as this campaign shows, but what is left when the primary is over?

The people want a positive leader who sees the good and the happy side of life – Reagan and Clinton are good examples – so when this campaign is over will the winner go forward to the General election contest hoping the same destructive techniques will win the White House? Governor Perry said “I’m not in the betting business,” but if I were, my money would be on the candidate with the positive campaign. As the old song says “Accentuate the positive eliminate the negative…”, or as Shakespeare reminds us in Othello:  

            
Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

— Pat Gogerty

P.S. View this 1964 LBJ commercial to see how history keeps repeating itself:

The Responsive Chord

Political rhetoric coming from the Republican candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina etc. stress racial and class separation based on the threat of a giveaway Obama administration.

During the 2008 campaign Obama made an offhand remark to a man at a rally to the effect that wealth would be redistributed if he were elected. The man was “Joe the Plumber” and we know how that played out.

During his press conference in Iowa on caucus night Newt Gingrich said “most important for America is jobs not wealth redistribution, paychecks not food stamps.” That same night Michelle Bachman said “we will repeal his socialized medicine program.” Romney stressed the same themes with an additional emphasis on “job creators.”

By looking at the content of the speeches one knows the results of the research among Republican voters. Those points in the speeches were revealed in the polling and focus groups research carried on by all candidates. When mentioned by the candidates, the words are meant to touch that response in voters that says “you know how I feel, you know my concerns.”

Then there was the speech by Rick Santorum that shared the simple life experience of an immigrant family fleeing Italy’s fascist Mussolini that through hard work realized the American dream. His description of his grandfather’s hands, big and calloused by a lifetime of digging coal, struck another responsive chord not revealed by research: “He is like me, and he feels my concerns.”

Rick Santorum’s speech was a very powerful expression of political philosophy delivered in simple easy to grasp words. Santorum mentioned that his grandfather worked in the coal mines until he was 72 years old and had worked for a mining company that paid in coupons that could be redeemed at the company store, or if he wanted, could be paid in money but it was less than coupons. The message in that vignette is “we have been exploited too.”

The question ahead is if Santorum can move his success to New Hampshire and South Carolina and beyond. That will take money because he needs TV ads to make the jump to national contender. Santorum did what others didn’t: he humanized the message and made it personal.

Polls can tell you what voters want but it takes a real person to make it work.

For Democrats the night saw the end of the Michelle Bachman campaign and a further entrenchment of the far right political movement.

— Pat Gogerty

The Power of Words

In the early 20^th century a great African American singer/athlete named Paul Robeson changed the way he sang the lyrics to one of the favorite ballads of the day, Stephen Collins Foster’s “Old Black Joe.” Instead of singing “old black Joe” he sang it as “old old Joe.” Robeson was a powerful voice for civil rights and equal justice under the law for African Americans and all laboring people. He participated in coal mine strike marches in England and in America. Robeson believed “black” to be an insulting term like the “n” word and refused to use it. Fifty years later young African Americans changed that, saying they were “black and proud.” Robeson was ahead of his time in so many ways, the use of language was just one of them.

Frank Luntz is a skilled wordsmith who crafts ideas into language for the Republican Party. When Democrats cast the top one percent of the population as the “Greedy rich,” Frank Luntz reframes it as the “job creators.” So when Frank talks about being afraid of a word we pay attention.

Recently in Florida at a gathering of Republican strategy creators he said “There is one word I am terrified of when I do focus groups and that word is capitalism.” His explanation was not as clearly stated as his fear of the word. However the Democrats also had some input to the concept of capitalism, one prominent Democrat sent an e-mail out that related the history of Abraham Lincoln’s thoughts on the subject of Capital and Labor. He quoted from a speech that Abraham Lincoln gave to a joint session of Congress in December of 1861:

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.”

Lincoln wrote those lines six years before Karl Marx published Das Kapital and given the connection newspaper wise, (ships carrying our papers  between America England) and the fact Marx was living in England one could speculate that he took those six words from Lincoln, “capital is the fruit of labor” to open his famous book. Lincoln wrote his words at the outset of the civil war and they were an economic argument based on the productive labor of both white and black men. Lincoln believed the wealth of the south was built on the fruit of slave labor.

Mr. Luntz might have justifiable concerns about having “capitalism” surface in focus group discussions. After all, the 99% group are asking for a more equitable share of wealth, a bigger slice of the prosperity pie. The 99% group could take a page from the Tea Party playbook and organize on the congressional district level; political power in America does not grow out of violence and noisy demonstrations but rather out of the ballot box. When they do calm down and begin talking about the stuff that Lincoln was talking about a century and a half ago, then the paradigm will shift and it will be a different ballgame.

— Pat Gogerty

Marriott Named Public Relations Professional of the Year

David Marriott is recognized by his peers as the 2011 Public Relations Professional of the Year. 

The award is presented each year by the Puget Sound Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America.

It recognizes an individual who makes significant contributions to the public relations profession and the community, acts as a mentor to other professionals and displays the highest degree of professional integrity.

David also received this award in 2001.

Congratulations from all of us here at Gogerty Marriott for all the great work you do.

Two is Company Three is a Crowd and Four is a Mob

The discontent flows from both sides of the political main stream. Could there be some tributaries branching out on both the left and the right? A third or even a fourth party? The Tea Party already stands waiting for a veto on the Republican choice for President and on the left bank of that mainstream there is the discontent manifest by the “occupy” movements.

The difference between the two groups is more than ideological. The legendary humorist Will Rogers once said “I belong to no organized political party, I’m a Democrat.”  Will Rogers would have been pleased with the Occupy movement for its focus is as diffuse and non -specific as its membership: multi-racial, multi-cultural, and embracing the entire spectrum of ages. Watching the two groups one feels the Tea Party is capable of causing the most disruption if things do not progress as they wish. Their discipline in support of the “no tax, shrink Government” goal will make the greatest impact.

The occupy movement is characterized more by flexibility and accommodation. They sit in collegial decision making circles, listen to each other’s’ points of view, and are much less disciplined and more likely to disagree on the details than their opposite number. Their binding principle is a demand for a fairer sharing of the riches of society. There is the rub, for in order to share more you have to collect more and that is unacceptable to the Tea Party.

So where would the strongest force come from for separating into a third party? The Occupy dissenters are much less likely to go to the extent of finding a candidate to carry their cause because they cannot all agree on a specific set of targets. Perhaps they could reach back to the Roosevelt era and ask for something all-encompassing like a “New Deal” or a “Fair Deal” or, as Harry Truman said, “Square Deal.” “Occupy the Street” just doesn’t do it.

President Obama enjoys a 92% support level among African American voters and anyone who seeks to challenge him from the left will have to take that into consideration if they hope for a political life beyond 2012.

The Tea Party, however, has elected people to the House of Representatives and the Senate and is most prepared to put their dissatisfaction into action. Governor Rick Perry is a possible champion for the unhappy right as well as Congressman Ron Paul, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain and some who yet remain undiscovered.

— Pat Gogerty

Greeks Debate

History tells us that as the Persians approached Thermopylae and the small band of Spartans there defending the pass, the Athenians were debating the benefits of joining the Spartans or fighting the Persians elsewhere. Their decision, delayed by discussion, turned out alright for them but for the Spartans not so much.

Today the Greeks are debating whether or not to adopt severe austerity measures that are necessary to save the economic stability of the European markets. The rest of the western world says it is not open for debate and with that message firmed up the economies of the rest of the common market. It is just another example of how interdependent America is with events in Europe. The day the Greeks said they were going to have a plebiscite on the proposal the stock market plunged but the next day when the proposal to submit the issue to voters was rescinded the market bounced back over two hundred points.

If something as remote as a vote by the people of Greece strongly affects our 401(k)s and retirement investments, then perhaps we need to understand better just how closely linked we are.

Amidst all the “in depth reporting” done on the loss of jobs to workers overseas no TV station has bothered to look at the places overseas where the jobs are going. Politicians constantly remind us that we have a global economy but we only get one side of the story. Whirlpool is moving 5,000 jobs to Europe. What are the personal stories of the workers in the location where they are going? What kind of government rules the country where they are relocating and what are the economic and social conditions of the area where the manufacturing will take place? It is obvious that there is more to the story than has been told by the reporting done by any of the news outlets.

The plaque marking the battlefield of Thermopylae says something like this “Stranger, tell the Athenians we wait true to our pledge.” In a modern translation it might just as easily say “look what happened while you were debating.”

The search for shared prosperity spans oceans and defines common needs.

— Pat Gogerty

Who Are These People and What Do They Want?

They call themselves the “occupy wall street” movement and more recently the “ninety-niners” because they are the vast majority of tax payers. They carry signs that demand “fairness” and “equality” and they want relief from the burden of student loan repayment or housing foreclosures. Watching their demonstrations, one is impressed with the largely nonviolent nature of their behavior and the compatibility with most of the police they encounter. The question still remains on what specific action they want taken to satisfy their demands.

In the 1960’s the demands of the protesters were to stop the draft and end the war. In that time they attacked draft offices and drove the military recruiters off college campuses.  They marched down freeways and disrupted commerce.  They chanted “hell no we won’t go” and they greeted returning service people with chants of “baby killers.” Their goals were simple and direct: stop the draft and end the war. More recently the Tea Party movement has demonstrated with great vigor against government in general and President Obama in particular. Their demonstrations have been more focused on Democratic Lawmakers, spitting on some black Congress people and calling them angry names with racial slurs. Their goals are easy to identify, less government and fewer Democrats.

The current demonstrations do not lend themselves to easy analysis. They talk about fairness and equal burden sharing, concepts that do not easily reduce to catchy one liners.  In fact, this is the most intellectual of demonstrations many of us have ever seen. Politicians first thought it was frivolous and a temporary fad without significance. Some political leaders called it a mob remincient of the French Revolution and threatening anarchy.  But soon they changed their minds and began to look for ways to use the demonstrations for their own political gain. But these demonstrators are not easily captured; they have drawn up their own charter and act with consensus. They are collegial decision makers and not subject to being co-opted easily.

When looking for a common thread one can see an intellectual connection to Massachusetts Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren. In her campaign rhetoric Warren stresses the commonality of purpose the rich and the poor have in our Democratic society and the need for all to participate fairly in paying for the upkeep of our governmental/social structure.  Of course it sounds a little like a pre-school classroom (“teacher we want you to divide the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches fairly”)

However, the real message of the demonstrators is that no one should have the deck stacked against them. They saw the banks bailed out after the bankers drove their own businesses to the verge of failure and Wall Street firms rescued from similar catastrophe.  To top it off both groups rewarded themselves with huge bonuses for just being there.

The question the demonstrators ask is “why not us?” Perhaps the 1968 Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy comes closest to the goal of these demonstrators when he said “Some people see things as they are and ask why. I see things as they can be and ask, why not?”

— Pat Gogerty

Canvasback Obama No More

Back in the day when sportswriters were a meaner bunch fighters who got knocked down a lot got the word “canvasback“ put in front of their name. The fighter being discussed was usually a loser who found himself on the canvas during the fight after being knocked down by his opponent.

Recent efforts by President Obama could easily put him the category of “political canvasback,” but Mr. Obama seems to have had enough of being punched around by his opponents. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, Republican operative Alex Castellanos mocked Obama as a whining child running around the country crying “mommy mommy the republicans won’t play fair.”   

The President has struck back hard. In the course of his remarks on his jobs bill he managed to tell the Speaker of the House that the Speaker was not smart and he challenged the Republicans by saying he would veto any measure that did not include increased revenue along with program cuts. His talk was the strongest statement to date of his resolve to defend and fight for his jobs proposal.

Putting it in a boxing analogy go back to the great Jack Johnson during the “white hope” era when every Caucasian fighter was pushed to try to take Johnson in the ring and failed. Most notable was Stanley Ketchell the middle weight champ. Before the fight started Johnson promised to take it easy on Ketchell, whom he outweighed by forty pounds, as long as Stanley didn’t try and make Johnson look bad. Stanley was full of himself and thought he was the equal of the Heavyweight Champion, he succeeded in knocking Johnson down but then Johnson got off the canvas and hit Ketchell so hard that he not only knocked him out but two of Ketchell’s front teeth were imbedded in Johnson’s glove.

For his Democratic followers, the speech was a resurrection of the Barack Obama they have missed since the 2008 campaign. He was fighting back, asserting himself and using strong language against his opponents, in short he served notice he is no longer a pushover. It may come to be looked at as a defining moment in his presidency. The warning should go out to the Republicans he is not the whining child portrayed by Mr. Castellanos.  The President may be channeling Jack Johnson.

The mutterings of those who would like to see a primary challenge against Obama include Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and the ever persistent Ralph Nader.  They should be temporarily quieted by this performance.  But if not they should realize that challenging Obama would be a suicide mission.

— Pat Gogerty