I was fortunate enough to hear David Gergen speak this week at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Gergen was an advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, and is currently a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. This guy knows what he’s talking about, and what he talked about this week was leadership. Specifically, what kind of leader do we need to elect in 2008?
Gergen firmly believes that our next president will face the most challenging and troubling world any new president has faced since 1932. For foreign policy, there is the question of what to do in Iraq. Pull out or stay the course, and what is the timetable? Next, what will be done about Iran and the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? How about Pakistan, an increasingly unstable region in the midst of a leadership crisis? These issues, which are also intertwined with the ongoing War on Terror, must be dealt with.
Problems on the home front are no less pressing, although Gergen’s experience has shown that presidents spend about 75% of their time on foreign issues. We are also entering a critical time period in regards to energy policy and global warming. Even though the U.S. never signed the Kyoto Treaty (which, Gergen noted, was rejected by a 95-0 vote in the Senate) it will expire for the countries that did sign it soon. There are also critical questions that must be dealt with concerning the tax codes (Bush’s tax cuts, which include the estate tax, are due to expire in 2011). Health care costs and Social Security, both compounded by the upcoming demographic shift in retiring Baby Boomers over the next 10-20 years, are also dealt with.
While every new president has challenges, Gergen noted that the timing and urgency of all of these challenges are what makes this situation dire. All of these issues, without exception, must be dealt with in the next four years. Furthermore, Gergen noted that nothing proactive gets accomplished in the first year of any president because they are always busy cleaning up the mess left by the president who came before them.
In short, our next president needs to be a visionary – someone with big ideas and the charisma to convince both a skeptical public and other countries to step up and meet the challenges. A partisan and polarizing leader (like the one we have now, or quite a few who are trying to be president) will accomplish nothing and is not what the U.S. needs to maintain its superiority.
Compare these issues to what was discussed in last night's debate – gun control, immigration, abortion and The Bible – and suddenly things don’t look too promising for one party anymore.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
More Presidential Musings
It’s getting even worse for the now-not-quite-predetermined front runner, which is good news for the Democratic Party. Hillary now polls behind every GOP frontrunner, and they didn’t even compare her to Mike Huckabee, who is gaining fast in Iowa. Huckabee may think the world is just 6,000 years old, but don’t discount his likeability and aw-shucks manner that work well in rural states. Plus he definitely has the coolest ad so far.
In more bad news for Clinton, both Obama and Edwards polled far better than her among GOP leaders. Plus her latest endorsement isn’t going to impress many undecideds and independents, let alone Democrats.
You can sense the hostility building between Obama and Clinton as the debates go on, the race tightens and the primaries edge closer. My personal feeling is that Romney and Clinton are very much alike. Both will shift their positions to whichever way the polls tell them. Both have no trouble changing their ideologies and flip-flopping their viewpoints in a flash if they think it will get them elected. And both have a respectable chance of being their parties’ nominees. Good grief.
So far, I’ve actually been most impressed with people like Ron Paul, John McCain and Barack Obama, all of whom have stuck to their ideological guns and are appealing to the voters with new ideas for what promises to be an increasingly dangerous world and very challenging times for America. Not all of their solutions are correct, but none of them will sink to the levels of a Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney to win. Can you picture Ron Paul planting questions at a press conference like Clinton’s team did?
One last thing: Should Clinton win the election, two families will have run our country for 24 years. This is a democracy, not a monarchy or even Dynasty. It should be stopped.
In more bad news for Clinton, both Obama and Edwards polled far better than her among GOP leaders. Plus her latest endorsement isn’t going to impress many undecideds and independents, let alone Democrats.
You can sense the hostility building between Obama and Clinton as the debates go on, the race tightens and the primaries edge closer. My personal feeling is that Romney and Clinton are very much alike. Both will shift their positions to whichever way the polls tell them. Both have no trouble changing their ideologies and flip-flopping their viewpoints in a flash if they think it will get them elected. And both have a respectable chance of being their parties’ nominees. Good grief.
So far, I’ve actually been most impressed with people like Ron Paul, John McCain and Barack Obama, all of whom have stuck to their ideological guns and are appealing to the voters with new ideas for what promises to be an increasingly dangerous world and very challenging times for America. Not all of their solutions are correct, but none of them will sink to the levels of a Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney to win. Can you picture Ron Paul planting questions at a press conference like Clinton’s team did?
One last thing: Should Clinton win the election, two families will have run our country for 24 years. This is a democracy, not a monarchy or even Dynasty. It should be stopped.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Why (Independent) Media Matters
I am a capitalist by religion and believe unnecessary government interference or regulation can burden businesses with often gratuitous costs and delay innovation. But when a business operates in a monopoly-like setting with a small set of large players stifling competition and making it impossible for independent, middle-market players to survive, then the government should step in. One of these examples was Major League Baseball, where a luxury tax has helped level the playing field so smaller budget teams like Cleveland, Colorado and Arizona can compete (OK, so it wasn’t the government, but you get the idea).
But one market that is indeed being squeezed by larger players is the media. In fact, thanks to some boneheaded FCC decisions (that were championed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), the media in this country is now dominated by four players – GE, Disney, News Corp., and Viacom. Virtually every major TV broadcast, cable network, top Internet information site and radio show is owned by one of these four players. The result has been a homogenization of the airwaves from a disparate choice of independent choices and voices to an industry dominated by the four big companies of today. While there is an undercurrent of underground and alternative newspapers and web sites, they largely represent extreme political viewpoints that would not find a widespread audience or are constricted to local audiences.
The real trouble began with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when the large media companies won an FCC ruling deregulating the industry. Media companies were now allowed to own any number of stations and outlets in a market provided their reach did not exceed 35% of the available audience. What followed was consolidation on an enormous pace. Radio companies like Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting gobbled up independent stations, who were then given set playlists (for music) and syndicated DJs who could not contribute on local issues (if you tune into an R&B or rock station in Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles, all three will probably be playing the exact same songs). It also erased the line between the broadcast networks and their syndication partners, meaning the networks were not obligated to work with independent production studios. This finally set off alarm bells when Viacom – CBS’ syndication partner – bought CBS in 2000.
Besides the public, the losers have been independent, local outlets who are best equipped to provide their local communities with the information they need. Local media outlets are a disappearing breed. The four players will say there are plenty of choices for viewers on cable, satellite radio and the Internet. But the majority of large choices on these mediums are also owned by the big four. For example, News Corp. owns everything named Fox, FX Network, DirecTV, TV Guide, Dow Jones and scores of other newspapers, Harper Collins, myspace.com, and a slew of other highly-trafficked web sites. Disney, Viacom and GE’s lists of holdings are equally vast. In fact the top 20 Internet news sites are owned by one of these four companies. They don’t care if their broadcast networks are losing audiences when they’re only going to the cable or Internet sites they also own.
In 2003, with the blessing of former FCC Bonehead Michael Powell, the FCC raised the audience reach-cap to 45%. The backlash was huge. Lobbying (by everyone from the NRA to NOW) was almost unnecessary due to the bipartisan pushback, spurred by grassroots efforts to the FCC. Powell ended up with a compromise and raised the cap to 39%. Now new FCC head Kevin Martin, who appears just as bright as Powell, is now considering removing the longstanding cross-ownership rules. This would permit a media company to own a newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same market. Martin wanted to ram these rules through before the end of the year, but now a bipartisan group of senators (including Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott) are pushing for a 90-day delay to amass opposition.
When an issue unites people as diverse as Ted Turner and William Safire, let alone the senators we mentioned, it means it has widespread support and the FCC is in the minority. If you care about independent, minority and local freedom of expression in this country, please write your senators and congressmen and ask them to stop this new FCC proposal. It is bad for capitalism and worse for democracy.
More Info: A timeline of FCC mismanagement
But one market that is indeed being squeezed by larger players is the media. In fact, thanks to some boneheaded FCC decisions (that were championed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), the media in this country is now dominated by four players – GE, Disney, News Corp., and Viacom. Virtually every major TV broadcast, cable network, top Internet information site and radio show is owned by one of these four players. The result has been a homogenization of the airwaves from a disparate choice of independent choices and voices to an industry dominated by the four big companies of today. While there is an undercurrent of underground and alternative newspapers and web sites, they largely represent extreme political viewpoints that would not find a widespread audience or are constricted to local audiences.
The real trouble began with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when the large media companies won an FCC ruling deregulating the industry. Media companies were now allowed to own any number of stations and outlets in a market provided their reach did not exceed 35% of the available audience. What followed was consolidation on an enormous pace. Radio companies like Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting gobbled up independent stations, who were then given set playlists (for music) and syndicated DJs who could not contribute on local issues (if you tune into an R&B or rock station in Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles, all three will probably be playing the exact same songs). It also erased the line between the broadcast networks and their syndication partners, meaning the networks were not obligated to work with independent production studios. This finally set off alarm bells when Viacom – CBS’ syndication partner – bought CBS in 2000.
Besides the public, the losers have been independent, local outlets who are best equipped to provide their local communities with the information they need. Local media outlets are a disappearing breed. The four players will say there are plenty of choices for viewers on cable, satellite radio and the Internet. But the majority of large choices on these mediums are also owned by the big four. For example, News Corp. owns everything named Fox, FX Network, DirecTV, TV Guide, Dow Jones and scores of other newspapers, Harper Collins, myspace.com, and a slew of other highly-trafficked web sites. Disney, Viacom and GE’s lists of holdings are equally vast. In fact the top 20 Internet news sites are owned by one of these four companies. They don’t care if their broadcast networks are losing audiences when they’re only going to the cable or Internet sites they also own.
In 2003, with the blessing of former FCC Bonehead Michael Powell, the FCC raised the audience reach-cap to 45%. The backlash was huge. Lobbying (by everyone from the NRA to NOW) was almost unnecessary due to the bipartisan pushback, spurred by grassroots efforts to the FCC. Powell ended up with a compromise and raised the cap to 39%. Now new FCC head Kevin Martin, who appears just as bright as Powell, is now considering removing the longstanding cross-ownership rules. This would permit a media company to own a newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same market. Martin wanted to ram these rules through before the end of the year, but now a bipartisan group of senators (including Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott) are pushing for a 90-day delay to amass opposition.
When an issue unites people as diverse as Ted Turner and William Safire, let alone the senators we mentioned, it means it has widespread support and the FCC is in the minority. If you care about independent, minority and local freedom of expression in this country, please write your senators and congressmen and ask them to stop this new FCC proposal. It is bad for capitalism and worse for democracy.
More Info: A timeline of FCC mismanagement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)