More Harper Lee and Grandma Allen, Less Newt Gingrich

I am sure there is a rule among those who provide news commentary against including an apology as part of the introduction of a topic. I am going to ignore it, because today’s rant is the result of my spending more time looking backward in recent weeks than looking forward, another thing so-called pundits are not supposed to do. So, I am sorry if my thoughts here seem off-track or even more disjointed than usual.

This all started when my daughter set her sights on playing the role of Scout in the Des Moines Playhouse production of “To Kill a Mockingbird.” She read Harper Lee’s great novel. I then re-read it for the first time since ninth grade. There were numerous family discussions over dinner about what each of our kids liked and did not about the story. Add to this the scrapbook of late 1800’s and early 1900’s family items my mom entrusted to me over the weekend and it is easy to see why I have been thinking about what has and hasn’t changed in America.

Gregory Peck, as Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird"  

The role of fictional lawyer and father Atticus Finch in Mockingbird has been described by many an actor as one of the few great roles. I suspect those of us who remain entranced by the novel after all of these years feel a connection to Atticus for many of the same reasons Gregory Peck and George Clooney do. We relate to Atticus not because he is an image of perfection, but because he is anything but. Atticus, with all of his flaws – his reluctant advocacy for Tom Robinson, his questionable bending of the law to protect Boo Radley, his less-than-ideal relationship with his children, Jem and Scout – is somebody we admire because he shows us it is possible for a person to become who he wants to be despite his shortcomings.

I was thinking about Atticus Finch’s fictional 1930’s Maycomb County, Alabama when I stumbled across an actual 1898 Cincinnati Commercial Tribune article in the family scrapbook. The paper reported on the 97th birthday celebration Mrs. Maria Soundes Allen hosted for herself at her home in Elyria, Ohio “at which she received the congratulations of 50 friends without either fatigue or embarrassment.”

According to the story, “Grandma Allen,” as she was known, sent five sons to fight in the Civil War and “then dried her tears to bend her energies to scraping lint, making bandages, bedding, jellies, and wine; in brief, everything in her power for the comfort of the boys who stood by the flag and upheld the union.” I tried to imagine her party as she “entertained her guests, not with frivolous chat, but with a vigorous discussion on the Philippine controversy, the beef scandal and other events of popular interest.” She must have been something.

This is why Atticus and Grandma Allen were on my mind earlier this week when I heard Newt Gingrich make this disconcerting statement, “Our religions, I think we need to have a government that respects our religions. I’m tired of being lectured about respecting every other religion on the planet. I want them to respect our religions.”

In Mockingbird, Scout asks Atticus why he is defending Tom Robinson even though everybody in town says he shouldn’t. Atticus tells her “before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t live by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”

My conscience tells me a statement like Mr. Gingrich’s should not go unchallenged.

Harper Lee created Atticus to help us understand there is no “us and them.” “Our” religion is no more worthy of respect than anyone else’s, just as “our” race is no more deserving than another.

Grandma Allen was concerned about making the world a better place until her final day. I have little doubt Grandma Allen had her shortcomings like this Atticus fan does, but I would like to believe Grandma Allen would be disappointed a leading contender for the presidency thinks erecting a wall of division is a winning strategy in 2012.

Harper Lee wrote, “Bad language is a stage all children go through, and it dies with time when they learn they’re not attracting attention with it.” And, divisive political speech is the worst kind of language. Yet, we have yet to outgrow it in America. Voters should stop rewarding candidates who use it. No candidate for public office, let alone for president, should be allowed to drive a wedge between us even with a throwaway line to coddle a few votes in a single speech.

Maria Allen and Harper Lee continue to teach us we are not great because we are a people who are similar. Our strength, our beauty and our greatness come from our diversity.

###

Shameless plug: To Kill A Mockingbird continues at the Des Moines Playhouse through February 12 with a fantastic actress I know who shares the role of Scout every other performance. For a story about the 50th anniversary of the film version click here.



Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com


This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Iowa Caucus Tie Trips Romney

Last night’s Iowa Caucuses may have produced the worst possible outcome for Mitt Romney. He would have been better off with an 8 point trouncing by Ron Paul than a virtual tie with Rick Santorum.

Mitt Romney’s long, bumbling walk to the nomination awkwardly continued last night. It seems no matter what Romney does, only 25% of Republicans support him. He got an astonishingly similar number of Iowa Caucus votes last night as he did four years ago. It has to be incredibly frustrating to raise millions and millions of dollars, and pour your heart out on the campaign trail only to discover you gained no ground whatsoever. Yet, on trudges the former Massachusetts governor.

Ron Paul represents a growing and vocal segment of the GOP and the electorate. Pundits, party hacks and political consultants have foolishly underestimated Paul’s ability to organize and the appeal of his message. However, Paul is limited in his ability to attract voters. Paul’s own campaign admits they avoid reaching out to voters over 60 because they find little support in that demographic. Put aside the irony that the only septuagenarian in the race does not appeal to his peers, a group that votes in high numbers – Paul is highly unlikely to build a winning national campaign because his libertarian message appeals to a limited audience. Combine this with his age and you begin to wonder why Paul does not have a visible bruise from hitting his head on his political ceiling.

I could argue (and have) Rick Santorum has limited electoral appeal. He is a conservative’s conservative. However, Santorum’s impressive victory in Iowa last night will have Republicans across the country giving the Santorum campaign bus tires a thoughtful kick over the next few days – a bus fueled by what will be an impressive influx of newly donated cash. Santorum is the latest candidate to fill the anti-Romney role, but unlike third place finisher Paul; Santorum is attractive to the Republican Party’s natural base.

Rick Santorum can energize a core group of voters. He won his first congressional race running on an economic message and can connect with voters in a personal way the sometimes-robotic Romney cannot.

Santorum may not be able to stop Romney’s slog to the Republican Convention in Tampa, but Santorum’s new looming presence on the trail is the last thing Romney anticipated would come out of Iowa. The Santorum detour poses a significant risk to Romney’s nomination. Romney’s inability to enthuse his party means he is vulnerable to somebody like Santorum.

Should Santorum use his moment in the Iowa victory spotlight to formulate an image of an electable candidate who can connect with voters in a way no Republican has in this race so far, Santorum can damage and possibly derail Romney’s campaign.

Romney’s long tiring plod to victory is far from over.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com


This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Iowa Caucuses are Over

Today the quadrennial Iowa Caucuses will climax with 100,000 or so Republicans going to schools, churches, recreation centers and a few homes to stand up for a candidate. The caucus model is truly fascinating and, when it works, it can serve an important role in democracy. It is refreshing to hear average people take the floor and advocate for the person they feel is best prepared to lead. For a brief moment, gone are the TV ads, push phone calls and sound bites delivered by well rehearsed talking heads. What are left are neighbors discussing important matters of state in a civil and meaningful way.
Secret ballots are vital to the process, but at this early stage, the process is made better by the people willing to discuss politics and what it means to them in an open format. In an age when so many hide behind the anonymity of an Internet comment, something strikingly positive happens when people stand-up to be counted at something like an Iowa Caucus. I am proud to be an Iowan and proud of my state for continuing this proud tradition.

What did the 2012 Iowa Caucuses accomplish?
By and large, Iowans acquitted themselves well this go around. They took the process seriously and gave the candidates a fair hearing. The candidates and their campaigns are the ones who fell short in this first presidential campaign test of 2012.


The Iowa Caucuses provide an important balance to the TV-centric/large event/media driven campaigns that follow in more populous states. Most of the time, candidates must spend a large portion of their time here meeting with smaller groups where they have to interact and answer the questions of actual voters. Scripted speeches and choreographed photo ops still happen, but the candidates’ true personalities see the light of day during the Iowa process in a way that is impossible once the national campaign machinery gets up-to-speed.


As important, in order to compete in the Iowa Caucuses, a campaign must focus on building an organization. TV ads and direct mail won’t alone motivate voters to go to a caucus. A campaign with experience building an organization focused on communicating directly to and with voters is going to be ready to turn-out the vote in the contests that follow. Iowa forces candidates to create and manage a campaign team. When one is put together well in Iowa, it will make the campaign stronger as it goes forward.
The 2012 race did not see any candidate take a decisive lead coming into caucus day, primarily because most of the candidates failed to follow the successful caucus campaign models of the past.

Mitt Romney greets supporters on the morning of the 2012 Iowa Caucuses.

Mitt Romney largely took a pass in Iowa. He visited the state infrequently. He did not even open a headquarters here until a few weeks ago. His poll numbers have remained unchanged throughout the contest. That being said, those leading his efforts in Iowa are among the best and Romney’s gamble is going to pay off because, for the most part, the rest of the field ran lousy efforts in the Hawkeye state. The 25% of Republican voters who have stood by Romney to this point will show up tonight and the undecided caucuses goers will break for Mitt as he is seen as the safe bet and eventual nominee. He will skate by, because the rest of the field had campaigns that were more flawed.


But, let me start with Rick Santorum. He did it right. He put in the time to visit every county at least once, held some 360 town hall style meetings and built an organization of hard working believers. His efforts have him surging at the best possible moment. Unfortunately for Santorum, he is so far to the right he is limited in how many people he can attract. Few in the middle will ever stand in his corner, so he cannot sustain the momentum. He has gone as far as he can, but I must give credit where it is due. He ran an all-out effort.


The same can be said about Ron Paul. The guy is consistent and, in his quirky way, he connects with many voters. He has fervent supporters who will show up tonight and he, too, has built an organization that works. Paul, however, has a ceiling of support that will prevent him from going much farther than he has already gone.


Newt Gingrich fizzled twice. He squandered his early opportunity and his last minute surge because he never made the effort to build a campaign organization. Gingrich is adept at thinking quickly when he has a microphone in his hand. But, to win in Iowa and go on to national success, one needs to do more than come up with clever comments to please those in the room at the moment. Iowa will weed Gingrich from the field. While he likes to blame the negative ads his competitors threw his way, Gingrich has himself to blame. Upon rising to the top, Gingrich discovered he lacked the structure required to support a front runner. Gingrich lost Iowa all by himself.


Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann did the same. They showed up at debates and played the part of a candidate, but they did not do the hard work required of a winner.


The Iowa Caucuses make presidential candidates do something most other contests do not. Iowa makes candidates stare into the eyes of voters, shake their hands and interact with them. Iowa also gives voters a stake in the process culminating in their having to stand up in front of their neighbors and voice support for their candidate.


If anything went wrong in Iowa this year, it was that too many candidates - Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann – tried to take a short cut.


The day may come when Iowa’s first in the nation status is lost. If so, the presidential election process will become something less.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Unwashed and Whitewash – Occupy Protest and Gingrich

Many of the responses to the Occupy protests are more revealing, interesting and troubling than the protesters accusations and actions are.

I have not been moved to camp out with the protesters.  Call me Pollyanna, but I want to think change can come without having to take to the rash measures chosen by the Occupy Movement.   By and large Americans are rational people who share the ideal all people deserve an equal shot at the American dream.  Right?  Maybe…hopefully…I am beginning to wonder.  There is something insidious in how and what some say about the protest and the protesters.  It makes me question how many truly believe in that pursuit of happiness/created equal stuff.

I’m fairly certain Newt Gingrich doesn’t speak for a broad swath of Americana, but he is a national figure comfortable in maligning a group if it helps him gain favor with another.  His comments about the Occupy protesters are disturbing and echo what a few others have said.  Since he is the frontrunner-of-the moment in the Republican contest for president, I will use his remarks to demonstrate the divide.

Occupy Des Moines in Stewart Square

When asked this weekend about the Occupy protesters, Gingrich said, “They take over a public park they didn’t pay for to go nearby to use bathrooms they didn’t pay for…to obstruct those who are going to work to pay the taxes to sustain the bathrooms and sustain the park so they can self-righteously explain that they are the paragons of virtue to which we owe everything.”

Public parks are, well, public.   They are not apportioned for use on an ability to pay, Mr. Gingrich.  A free society builds and maintains parks for the collective good, not just so the well-to-do have something pretty to look at as they go about their lives.  The courts may decide in some cases that a small group’s occupation of a public space harms that greater good, but that is different than implying some lack a right to be there because others paid for the space.  Every American has a right to use public spaces whether they made millions lobbying – ahem, being a historian – or a few thousand being a baker.

Moreover, painting the protesters with a broad brush as ne’re-do-wells and freeloaders is duplicitous.  It may be easier to craft a sound bite if you discount the group as troublemakers and ignore the fact many occupiers are teachers, medical professionals, veterans and other members of the middle class you pine about supporting while on the stump, Mr. Gingrich, but you are missing the point.

Like it or not the protesters are your fellow Americans.  Many of their frustrations stem from the same fissures in our nation that spawned the Tea Party you are trying to appropriate to power your ride to election victory.

The Occupiers took to Wall Street and cities across the country including Des Moines where they are currently occupying a park across the street from Tasty Tacos to express frustration about the increasing inequity in modern America.  Unfortunately for the Occupy naysayers, many facts fall on the protesters’ side.

Study after study provides evidence the once vibrant, robust backbone of our nation known as the middle class is in decline.  The current generation of middle class children may be the first to do less well than their parents.  Meanwhile, those at the top of the income spectrum are in the midst of an unprecedented boom.  It appears the 2008 economic downturn causing pain to most Americans may have actually benefited the rich.  At a minimum, these trying times have impacted the wealthy the least.  But, don’t take this the wrong way.  The solution is not found by penalizing the successful, but leveling the field in a way to provide a fair chance for more to be successful.

I cannot decide if it is laughably ironic or plainly despicable Mr. Gingrich calls the protesters self-righteous as he directs this pomposity toward them, “We need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, ‘Go get a job right after you take a bath.’”

Someone needs to reassert to Mr. Gingrich and those quick to look down their noses at the Occupy protesters something as simple as ‘America belongs to all Americans.’

The way to economic recovery and stability begins with civil discourse and respect for those willing to stand-up for what they believe, even when we disagree.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Newt Gingrich is a Bully

Newt Gingrich is a smart guy and I have liked many things he has said over the years.  However, his willingness to throw democracy and the principles of good government under the wheels of his campaign bus as it swerves hard to the right is appalling.

Gingrich was in Iowa yesterday promoting his latest book and his potential presidential campaign.  Pushing the latest political hot-button, marriage, Gingrich said the integrity and authority of the system comes from the consent of the governed, “then the governed have indicated they don’t agree with this court … so I think they have any sense of integrity about protecting the court, they’ll step down.”

Wait.  What?

CHRISTOPHER GANNON/THE REGISTER

Gingrich’s statement is silly.   No, it is worse.  Gingrich has shown a reckless disregard for justice.  Having three separate and distinct branches of government provides an important balance.  The executive and legislative bodies are selected by regular and competitive elections.  These branches were meant to be responsive to the evolving priorities of the people.  Justice demands members of the Court consider the Constitution and laws of the land with a bit more distance from the influences of popular election.

Retention votes make sense.  The people should have the ability to remove judges they deem unfit for office, but judges should not be influenced to rule based on perceived popular opinion.

Gingrich’s statement is so outrageous it does not deserve comment, until you realize he could actually be a contender for the presidency.  Let’s deconstruct what he said.

First, Gingrich takes a huge leap in logic when he says voters would have tossed all of the Justices out had they been on the ballot.  He does not know that.  Polls indicate many of those voting “no” wanted to send a message.  If all of the justices were on the same ballot, it is fair to assume voters would have considered the potential chaos that could have ensued from the Supreme Court on down had all of the justices been tossed out.  A majority may not have voted “no” on the entire slate.  Balancing court continuity with the need for a public check is precisely why staggered terms for Justices were written into the Constitution.

Next, it is ludicrous to suggest this year’s vote should cause the remaining Justices to step down.  Following this flawed logic, all Republicans in the U.S. Senate who were not on the ballot should have resigned in 2008 to protect the integrity of Congress after the thumping their Party took that year.  Like Senators, Justices have terms that allow voters to consider a public servant’s entire record of service.  Had Gingrich resigned when he took a single vote in Congress that was unpopular, his career would have been considerably shorter.

A stable democracy demands a process of thoughtful consideration.   Voters have the opportunity to be heard from time to time, but that is different than knee-jerk mob rule.  Gingrich’s suggestion that Iowa’s remaining Supreme Court Justices step down looks less like democracy and more like a coup d’état where polls and the muscle of political groups substitute for guns and military strongmen.

Ejecting judges or forcing them to resign every time people disagree with a ruling will destroy a system designed to ensure each member of our society can find justice whether they have popular political support or not.

The Court acted in a legal manner and the marriage restriction was struck down.  Kicking Justices off the bench will not change that.  Democracy provides those who want sexually restrictive marriage a path to reverse the ruling.  They need to draft and pass laws and/or a constitutional amendment that withstand legal scrutiny.  That may be a painful and difficult task, but it is the way the process is supposed to work.

Replacing an independent judiciary with judges who will pander to win votes as Gingrich is should strike fear in all Iowans.  We all have a stake in preserving the ability of judges to do their jobs without being threatened by political bullies like Gingrich.

Justice prevails only if the people take a longer view than some guy who is singly focused on his fate in the next election.  Newt Gingrich may enjoy political racing, but he appears to not understand the fundamentals a stable and just society needs to survive.  He is wrong on this and he needs to steer his campaign vehicle in a different direction.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

My American Pledge

Today, Congressional Republicans released a Pledge to America, a series of guiding principles intended to show how Republicans will lead if they take control of the House.  Among other promises in the twenty one page document, those signing “pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.”  I will ignore the political code words in that and applaud them for at least saying something about what they will do.  It is a switch from a campaign based on complaining about what others have done and scaring people about what these others might do.

The 1994 Contract with America, devised by former Speaker Newt Gingrich, was simple and, as such, served as an outstanding election tool.  Like much in politics today, this new document is convoluted.  The Contract was clear-cut and linked to specific legislation.  Incidentally, Congress passed 60% of those bills in the first few months of taking power.  Perhaps the Pledge will offer a similar roadmap.  Time will tell.

In the meantime, I drew up my own pledge to guide me in this and all future elections.

I, pledge to:

1. Pay less attention to the Party label/single issue/tagline a candidate chooses and more attention to her values, experience and ability to do the job she seeks.
2. Stop allowing those who seek power/money/influence/self aggrandizement to cloud my thinking.  It may be fun to listen to the media talking heads make a game out of politics, but their talk can be destructive.  I am interested in making the world a better place.  To do so, I will seek information to help me decide what is best for my country, my state, my community and my family and I will discard meaningless rhetoric.
3. Listen to others (real people, not the talking heads mentioned above).  I accept I do not know everything.  By learning from others, even those with whom I disagree, I will become a better, more informed voter and citizen.
4. Participate.  It is my duty to become informed on issues affecting me, my family, my neighbors and my countrymen.  I may not know what it is to be gay/minority/rich/poor/disabled/fill-in-the-blank, but it is my patriotic responsibility to help those in need, those discriminated against and all of my fellow Americans.  We all have a right to pursue the promise of freedom, the American dream.  I must act and not wait for others to do so.
5. Remember elections are not sporting events.  I do not seek wins for the red or blue column, having more R’s than D’s in a diagram, or a conquest of one party over another.  An election does not end in triumph; it only decides who will next enter the arena.  A victory is achieved when our country takes another step toward assuring freedom, equality and justice for all.  This happens with collective action, not vote counting.
6. Vote for candidates who will honestly evaluate each bill, situation and issue before them and who will base decisions on what is right for the people they wish to serve, not on what is best for the candidate or his Party.
7. Vote for candidates who understand our Constitution – the whole document – and who will not play favorites with the sections expedient to advancing the cause du jour.[i]
8. To be strengthened, not limited, by history.  Like my own, America’s past is filled with successes and mistakes.  I will not rest on the achievements of yesterday or dwell on its errors.  I will build on what has been learned.
9. To be fair.  Freedom dies without justice.  I will fight for fairness and justice and will support only those candidates for office who will do the same.
10. To take advantage of all America provides.  The best way to spread freedom at home and abroad is to treat others as we wish to be treated.  If my fellow Americans and I thrive and we remain true to protecting freedom here and, when we can, elsewhere; more will join us and freedom will blossom in every corner of our country and in the most distant, hostile parts of the world.

---

[i] The first “pledge” in the Republican Pledge to America is to pay more attention to the 10^th Amendment than to the rest of Constitution.  Sorry, guys, the whole thing is important.  You don’t get to pick your favorite part as an excuse to overlook the rest. They also say they will honor the “original intent” of the Framers.  Unless you were actually one of the original framers, there is no way for you to know for sure what they intended.  It is better to stick to the document and make a case for what you believe than to pretend like you know what you want to do was intended by the Founders and what the opposition says was not.  The text from the Pledge reads: “We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”


(Contact Graham Gillette at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.