25

SELLING COMMON GROUND

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.

—Nikita Khrushchev

AT THE BEGINNING, WE PROMISED TO PUT POLARIZATION ON TRIAL. We presented evidence of the damage this insidious disease has done to our system of government and how it has grown to dominate our political system. We named the culprits, past and present (ourselves included), and the myths, tactics, and scams of polarizers. In addition, we looked back to what bipartisanship, with all its imperfections, had accomplished at crucial periods in our history.

But this trial was different than most because the jury had already reached a decision. The voters had cast guilty verdicts on polarization in the elections of 1994 and 2006. As early as 1980, voters convicted polarization much like contagious disease, giving a much-ignored warning that left unchecked, it could become an epidemic.

Polarization may have lost a round or two at the polls, but it still holds power over our national politics. It may continue to do so for some time, unless bipartisanship and consensus are accepted as a strong political counterforce to the tactics that have been the weapon of choice for two decades.

There are legitimate questions whether common ground can emerge as that competing strategy. Could common ground, which until now has been little more than a meaningless campaign slogan, become a powerful enough message to win a national campaign? Could it then become a governing mandate for the victors?

How can common ground compete with polarization, especially in light of the vast amounts of money polarization has been effective in raising for thousands of interest groups and politicians? (In 2006, $2.6 billion was spent by special interests on federal lobbying alone, excluding campaign donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.)

Is common ground a relic of the past, like the drive-in movie or a five-cent Coke, cherished in retrospect but not practical in today’s world? And if not, how would common ground work in today’s political climate? How can politicians benefit from a common ground message when they have been grounded in the dark arts of polarization?

Before we answer these questions, let’s begin by saying what we do not believe common ground will accomplish. We are not suggesting that Republicans and Democrats will sit around a campfire, sing a few choruses of “Kumbaya,” and pledge to study political war no more. There are reasons we have a two-party system. Too many countries have only one party, and if the people are allowed to vote at all, the system is rigged so the dictator and his cronies are always reelected.

Common ground is not a theory or an issue, and it’s not a much-ignored, let’s-split-the-difference message. Nor is it a strategy that is at odds with either party’s ideology. By seeking common ground, politicians are not required to abandon their deeply held beliefs. More important, common ground is not a new nonpartisan movement. In fact, common ground can’t realistically work without partisanship.

Common ground, which is a governing strategy based on consensus and bipartisanship, is not a new idea. For much of our history, it has been the political rule rather than the exception. At times, it has given way to great polarizing periods, such as the Civil War, the civil rights movement, and Vietnam; all driven by deeply-felt ideological differences. As divisive as these polarizing events were, they differ from the special-interest, power-driven polarization era of the last thirty years.

If progress is to be made on the important issues facing America, then common ground is necessary in a system of government dominated by two major parties that have conflicting ideas on most issues. Fortunately, in this period of voter unrest, a few politicians in both parties are beginning to recognize the need to find some consensus before another voter wave crashes over them. Common ground is a means to that end, not the end itself.

We don’t expect that a common ground climate will settle on Washington overnight, or that it will completely replace polarization. Polarization, to some degree, will always be with us because polarizers will always be among us. We believe that common ground can compete with polarization, and that it will be accepted by a new generation of politicians as a strategy to win elections.

What follows is the case for common ground as a viable political strategy for a 2008 presidential campaign and beyond. The messages, tactics, and ideas we offer can be integrated into the campaigns of candidates from either party or an independent third party candidate. Much like polarization, whose tactics have operated across party lines for years, common ground is a “nonpartisan” strategy.

THE PLAYING FIELD: 2008 IS THE PERFECT YEAR FOR A COMMON GROUND MESSAGE

The 2008 presidential campaign is the most wide-open race in recent history. For the first time since 1924, neither a president nor a current or former vice president is competing for either party’s nomination. At the same time, both parties are facing an identity crisis: Democrats are adjusting to their new status as the congressional majority party, while Republicans face a presidential season without their traditional party-establishment front-runner.

For the first time in two decades, polarization is under fire. Both parties are experiencing internal battles between pragmatic party operatives and their ideological wings over the dangers of continuing polarizing tactics. While Democrats try to control their partisans on the left over Iraq, Republicans are attempting to develop a less “values”-driven strategy that can attract crucial independent voters, many of whom have abandoned the party. They will need them if they are to hold the White House and gain congressional seats. This must be done without alienating GOP supporters on the right, a difficult task.

This “soul-searching” is complicated by the absence of a recognized leader to impose party discipline and establish a consistent message. That role will be filled by each party’s presidential candidate, a process that will take months to sort out. Meanwhile, Democratic congressional leaders are torn between confronting the Bush administration over policies ignored under a Republican-controlled Congress and trying to pass legislation promised in the 2006 election. Republicans are finding it difficult to put space between themselves and an unpopular president while still supporting him (thus far at least) on the war in Iraq.

The early presidential front-runners sit atop the polls more as a reflection of name recognition than as candidates with a base of loyal supporters. The situation is so tenuous among Republicans that talk of potential candidates entering the battle in the summer was being taken seriously in the spring of 2007. The Democrats’ field is more settled, but it is dominated by current or former members of the Senate, which has not sent a candidate directly to the White House since John Kennedy, nearly fifty years ago.

There is general agreement among operatives of both parties that voters signaled a message for change in the 2006 election. The question remains whether they were signaling a midcourse change in the current political cycle (which has lasted for twenty years) or signaling the beginning of a completely new cycle. How the presidential candidates and their handlers answer that question will determine their choice of a message and strategy for 2008.

One signal from 2006 seems to be accepted by most of the presidential candidates: polarization as a central campaign message is not a strategy that will win this election. That doesn’t mean polarizing tactics are going away, but campaigns will not be as eager to highlight them, nor will the press simply accept such tactics without much criticism, as was the case in the presidential campaign of 2004.

How much of a role polarization will play in 2008 goes back to the question of a new political cycle. Those candidates who believe a new cycle is beginning will be very wary of using polarizing tactics. Those who reject the new-cycle theory realize the need for “midcourse” change in strategy, but are not sure what changes will work. We predict they will eventually fall back on polarization because they prefer the familiar to the new, especially when the familiar has a twenty-year track record of success.

We believe a new cycle has begun, and that a common ground message is in sync with that cycle. Even the election calendar favors a common ground strategy. With several large states moving their caucuses and primaries to early 2008, the nominating process is now so front-loaded that most of the campaigning for the nomination is taking place in 2007.

It’s now likely that each party will select its nominee very early in the campaign year, allowing the winning candidates to switch from campaigning for the partisan voters necessary for the nomination to swing voters who will most likely decide the election outcome in November. In previous presidential nominating contests (with the exception of those in which incumbent presidents were seeking a second term), the calendar and a crowded field have forced candidates to tailor their message for partisan party voters, sometimes deep into the election year.

The sooner a candidate who adopts a common ground message can distance himself from party polarizers, the sooner he can make polarization an issue. That’s one reason 2008 is favorable to a candidate who adopts a common ground message. If the nomination is indeed determined early in the year, common ground is a fresh strategy that can sustain a protracted general election. Trying to maintain a campaign with polarizing tactics will be especially difficult in 2008.

Every reliable indicator points to voters fed up with the current cycle and ready to move on in 2008. But the desire for a new political direction comes at a time when voters are more uncertain about their own futures, and the future of the country, than at any time since the Vietnam War. Most political observers believe that an uncertain electorate makes the selection of a strategy difficult. We think the level of uncertainty provides a perfect climate for a common ground strategy and message.

Uncertain times demand more predictable and stable politics. Voters will be looking for a president who can begin to calm some very turbulent waters. In times like these, we believe, voters will be looking for the most competent and least dogmatic leader. They will be looking for a candidate open to new ideas, who can unite the country. In other words, they will be attracted to a candidate whose message is about competence, not ideology.

If this is the climate in 2008 (and we have no doubt it will be), then common ground is clearly not a pipe dream, but an opportunity. What follows are suggestions for maximizing that opportunity. To better explain common ground in the context of a presidential campaign, we offer suggestions for how a candidate might articulate a common ground message by using parts of several “fictitious” campaign speeches. Neither of us has been a speechwriter, so please take what we suggest as more of an outline than actual speech recommendations.

Campaign Recommendations

1. CAMPAIGN AGAINST POLARIZATION.

Polarization is not a strategy to campaign on, but an issue to campaign against. Our travels around the country have shown us that people are longing for a candidate who is willing to confront polarization. They want a candidate who can articulate the case against polarization, and who understands that to the voters, polarization is no longer an isolated battle between parties in Washington. They believe polarization has strained the relationship between the people and their government to the breaking point and they want it to stop.

The people we met want to embrace common ground as the alternative to polarization, but wonder if politicians will ever make the necessary sacrifices so that consensus politics is possible. We met one particularly cynical voter in March 2007, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This fellow sarcastically asked if we expected politicians to embrace common ground because it is “nicer” than polarization. We agreed that politicians don’t change to “nicer” strategies unless they are winning strategies.

Let’s be clear about the common ground campaign message and strategy we are suggesting here. It is not some Pollyanna-ish, good-government exercise in taking the political high road (although taking the high road in politics would indeed be nice). Polarization is an evil but powerful force in politics, and driving it off center stage is going to take guts and determination. It will require a strategy of confrontation and hardball politics. It is not a strategy for the faint of heart. In that context, common ground is not a “nice” strategy.

Voters will respond to a common ground message, but they will do so cautiously. Keep in mind that voters are more suspicious than ever of politicians, and for good reason. The credibility gap between politicians and voters is not easily bridged after twenty polarizing years. A candidate’s commitment to a battle against polarization will be tested by voters who, like the cynics in Washington, have “heard it all before.”

They will expect a candidate who campaigns against polarization to name names, and to not be afraid to name the polarizers in his or her own party. Take health care for example. If you are the Democratic nominee, you have no credibility if you attack doctors and don’t bring the malpractice excesses of trial lawyers to the debate. If you’re the Republican candidate and pitch the old “we have the best health care system in the world,” but don’t attack the health care providers and the insurance industry (which block meaningful reform while reaping big profits from the status quo), you, too, will have a credibility problem.

Similarly, if you’re a Democrat and minimize the threat of Islamic terrorists (yes, call them what they are) and think, because of Iraq, the public has backed off the war on terror, you’re deluding yourself. If you’re a Republican and roll out the G. W. Bush/neoconservative line about using military power to spread democracy around the world, while belittling diplomacy and rejecting our allies’ advice…count on getting your vote, maybe your spouse’s, and those of a few true believers. Idealism is out in foreign adventures, and pragmatic diplomacy is in.

Here are just a few examples of common ground attack points to consider:

“We have lived through too many years of small and destructive politics. It has been a politics that seeks to divide Americans against Americans, and communities against communities. It is a politics that raises money and secures votes by cynically pitting the values of one group against the values one another. It is a politics that encourages people to challenge others’ patriotism and character. That politics is the politics of polarization and the extreme ideologues and institutions that perpetuate it.”

“Polarization is undermining the very foundation on which our system of government rests. Polarization promotes the politics of personal destruction; it drives our citizens away from the voting booth; and it pollutes our political debate with incendiary rhetoric and baseless allegations. Polarization is not about principle; it is about keeping power and making money and it will be stopped.”

“It is time to move beyond the evil era of polarization and the paralysis it breeds to a new era of common sense and common ground, an era that seeks consensus and not constant confrontation, an era that seeks to find what is in the common interest of most of us rather than promoting the narrow interests of a few.”

“We stand on the hallowed soil of the American spirit. It is the common ground I share with millions of my fellow Americans. It is ground where ‘we the people’ stand, and to those who promote polarization we say simply…it is time for you to move to other ground.”

2. DO NOT CAMPAIGN AS THE DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT, BUT AS A COMMON GROUND CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The two major political parties are dinosaurs. They are seen by the vast majority of centrist voters as corrupt institutions where polarizers mimic one another and where big campaign money is handed out (with instructions on how to use the money and what message the money should buy); and they are seen as places of convenience, more than incubators for new ideas. For most self-described “weak” Republican and Democratic voters, a party represents no more than a list of candidates on the ballot in descending order of importance.

Of course party affiliation still matters to most people who vote in a caucus or primary to choose their party’s presidential nominee and it certainly matters to the candidates seeking the party’s presidential nomination. Both parties have histories, traditions, core values, and heroes, and candidates for the nomination will be expected to adhere closely to the spirit of each. However, in 2008 candidates will have fewer ideological restraints because the outcome is so uncertain. The desire to win in an unpredictable year tends to give candidates more room to maneuver.

That’s a good thing, because if ever there was a time when party labels mattered less and competence mattered more, it is now. The old stereotypes thrown at each party by the other will matter less, and a serious political discussion will matter most. A campaign based on ideological grounds will be no match for a campaign of fresh ideas.

A campaign void of as much partisan rhetoric as possible will be important to success in 2008. The polarizing battles between Democrats and Republicans over the last two decades have done much damage to the reputations of each. We would strongly suggest that a candidate avoid lines like “The Democratic [Republican] Party has a long tradition of standing up for blah, blah, blah.”

A common ground approach would read more like this:

“I am the nominee of a party for president, and I am grateful to my party for that honor. I sought this nomination as a member of my party, but I seek the office of president as a citizen of America. For too many years, both political parties have tried to attach simplistic and often derogatory labels on each other, labels that were meant to bring one candidate down while building the other up. The result has been a vicious climate of polarization. It is time for that to stop.

“I have no interest in labeling my opponent, and I will not allow labels to be attached to me. Simplistic labels are meant to divide us. They have too often succeeded. But in the end, the polarizers who attach the labels will be the losers. They will lose because we are first and foremost Americans, and that is the only label that matters.”

3. MATCH RONALD REAGAN’S BET, AND RAISE IT.

Ronald Reagan said he believed in an “eleventh commandment”: never speak ill of a fellow Republican. In a common ground general election, we would broaden that to “speak as little ill of your opponent as is reasonable and politically practical.”

This suggestion is aimed particularly at the use of negative ads, which have dominated the polarization cycle over several decades. The voters consistently, and with increasing intensity, say they hate negative ads. To which media consultants respond, “Voters always say they hate them, but they pay attention to them.” The reality is not quite so clear. A better (and less biased) observation is that voters hate negative ads more and more, and are influenced by them less and less.

That is another overlooked (purposely by political consultants) lesson from the 2006 campaign. Negative TV commercials had very little impact on closely contested races (with a few exceptions).

When Pennsylvania Republican senator Rick Santorum fell behind his Democratic opponent, Bob Casey, in the summer and early fall of 2006, Santorum spent millions on an anti-Casey campaign ad blitz, spread over several weeks. When it was over, Casey had increased his lead. Santorum lost the election.

When Democratic challenger Jim Webb was gaining ground on Virginia incumbent senator George Allen (after numerous Allen missteps), Allen unleashed a thirty-day, multimillion-dollar negative television barrage against Webb. When it ended, Webb had a slight lead. Furthermore, with the Virginia race dead even going into the weekend before Election Day, Webb chose to end his campaign with a positive TV and radio message. Webb won.

The candidate who campaigns more on substance and less on the shortcomings of his or her opponent will find a far more receptive audience. The candidate willing to challenge the conventional wisdom of the last few presidential elections, which suggests that to win, a candidate must drive their opponent’s negatives up, is likely to fare better. Here’s a radical thought that is certain to upset expectations about politicians: look for opportunities to say something nice about your opponent and mean it. Polarization has driven the last remnants of civility from politics, and voters resent it.

Presidential campaign debates in the polarizing era have grown increasingly contentious. As a rule, pollsters bring preselected voters together in focus groups to watch presidential debates. They use the responses to prepare their candidate for the next debate. In 2000 and 2004, pollsters reported that many voters felt uncomfortable with the level of confrontation between the candidates. It is human nature to want to avoid confrontation, but that apparently has been lost on political operatives who think confrontation makes a candidate appear strong.

Here are a few suggestions for a common ground approach to presidential debates in the 2008 campaign.

 

CANDIDATES ARE USUALLY ALLOTTED BETWEEN TWO AND THREE minutes for opening statements in a presidential debate. Instead of using the entire three minutes to applaud yourself (although you should save time for some of that), or attack your opponent (although some of this may be necessary, it should be done with civility), why not use one minute and say something like this:

“Before we start tonight, I want to take a moment to say something about [opponent’s first and last name]. Running for president is an honor, it is rewarding, but in recent elections, running for president has dissolved into unnecessarily harsh rhetoric. Neither of us want that. I have known my opponent for many years [or whatever fits], and he/she is an honorable person who is a dedicated public servant. As you will see tonight, there is much we disagree on, but before we speak of our differences and possibly some agreement, I want to say to [use opponent’s first name] how much I appreciate your service, and to thank you for joining me tonight in this debate. We will disagree on some, perhaps many, things, but I am confident we will do so agreeably.”

Before a candidate listens to some political consultant dumb down this suggestion, consider this: if you can say something positive about your opponent and mean it, even the cynical media will have a tough time finding an angle to attack. If your opponent happens to be a polarizer at heart, what is he going to say?

“I have known you a long time, too, and you are a no-account low-life.”

That may be what he is thinking, but most likely the opponent will simply say thank you. More important, if the millions watching on TV believe the candidate is sincere, that candidate will exceed expectations and reap the benefits.

Just consider how different the 2004 election might have been if John Kerry had said, in the first debate with George Bush, “Before we begin, I wanted to thank President Bush for his leadership and healing words in the difficult days following 9/11.” Then, with Kerry’s convention salute still fresh in people’s minds, he could have turned to the president, saluted, and said simply, “Sir, the American people thank you, and I thank you.” The Swift boat ads might have been a little less believable.

4. GIVE YOUR OPPONENT CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE; AND IN THE PROCESS GET CREDIT FOR GIVING CREDIT.

How many times have we heard a presidential candidate, after listening to his opponent’s answer to a policy question in a debate, feel compelled to say, “I agree with that answer,” while exhibiting an expression that conveys torture? Here’s what a common ground response would sound like:

“[Opponent’s first name], I think that’s a good point, and I agree with you.” [Then pick out one idea your opponent has campaigned on that you think is smart and workable, an idea that she has used successfully in her campaign, and is perceived by the press and public as “owning.” Why not give your opponent credit for something for which she has already been given credit?]

“You have made a proposal in this campaign that I think would be good for the country.” [Short description of the proposal.] “I’d like to make a deal with you tonight. If I win this campaign, and I believe I will, I’d like you to help me turn your idea [whatever it is] into policy after the election. Your idea would be good for the country, and I want to see it become law.”

Again, before you let your overly cautious political consultants tell you it would be crazy to give your opponent credit for anything substantive (he is probably still getting over your opening statement), consider this: your opponent has already made the idea his own, it is a very good idea, it will get your opponent votes, and you can’t steal it from him at this point without the media calling you a plagiarizer.

Trying to attack the idea is dumb—after all, it is a good idea. You might as well recognize that, and at least get credit for a magnanimous gesture. More important, it would be good for the country, your opponent can help sell it to his or her side if you win, and it sets a model for what common ground governing is about. Everybody wins, most especially the country.

5. MR. LINCOLN AND MR. DOUGLAS HAD A GREAT IDEA; USE IT.

Speaking about debates, virtually every candidate for president from both parties has used a version of Hillary Clinton’s call for a conversation between candidates and voters. She has actually made it a campaign mantra: “Let the conversation begin.” We are not suggesting that other candidates use that line, but rather that they (including Hillary Clinton, if she is the nominee) agree to put the concept into action (with a twist) during the general-election campaign.

Presidential campaign debates matter. In some cases (Kennedy, 1960, and Reagan, 1980), they may well have decided the election. The television audience is huge (close to 100 million watched the first Bush–Kerry debate in 2004). Debates are the only real chance voters get to see the candidates side by side, and they give voters a chance to assess the content of a candidate’s message as well as measure his character.

The problem is modern presidential debates are too scripted. There are too many artificial barriers to allow for a serious debate. The moderators and/or questioners are from the political media. They are forever trying to create a “gotcha” moment. The time to answer or respond to the opponent’s answer is too short. The few times real voters are allowed to participate, their questions are screened and they are rarely allowed follow-up questions. Worst of all, the candidates don’t get to ask each other questions, or get into a serious discussion of an issue, beyond a thirty-second “rebuttal.”

In 1858, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, and the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, agreed to tour regions of Illinois together and debate. They took questions from the audience, and they did this for hours at a time. People brought picnic baskets and stayed to listen and ask questions. The only other person on the stage, besides Lincoln and Douglas, was the man who introduced them. There were seven debates during the campaign. Lincoln lost the election, but from the debates he gained national recognition that he used to win the presidency two years later.

If you have ever read the debate transcripts, you can’t help but be impressed with the substance, the amount of detail, and a sense of the character of both men. We are not suggesting debates of that length (the TV networks would never cover them), nor are we suggesting as many debates. But even a few of these real debates would provide voters with more useful information than contemporary faux debates could ever give them. For one thing, these types of debates would be more spontaneous and revealing of the candidates’ character, and the candidates would be freed from the straitjackets negotiated for them by political consultants.

Bob Beckel negotiated debate details in 1984 with only one thing in mind: “make as little room as possible for my candidate to ‘screw up’” (the political consultant’s version of the Hippocratic Oath, “First do no harm”). By now, your political consultants are in convulsions, begging you to put down this book. Pay no attention to them.

Most presidential candidates we have known are fairly confident of their debating skills, believe they would be the best president, have political courage (or wouldn’t run for president), and secretly detest the restraints put on them by their handlers. There are endless accounts (several spoken directly to us from the source) of candidates exploding after debates because the format was too restrictive and their responses too scripted. This comes from candidates who were generally regarded as winners of the debate.

There will no doubt be critics of this idea from the “do no harm” crowd (political consultants) and the “unemployed questioner” crowd (the press). The consultants will argue that one candidate could sandbag the other with a question, for example, about an ex-mistress. In today’s climate, that kind of attack would be seen by the public as the worst kind of polarization and the candidate who asked it would lose the debate.

The consultants might ask, “Who is going to referee this?” Come on. This isn’t professional wrestling. These people want to be president. If they can’t control themselves, they shouldn’t be running for president in the first place. The press will fret that the two candidates will get too substantive and not give television, radio, and headline writers a good sound bite. The press will secretly be saying, “Without us, who’s going to trick these two into a ‘gotcha’ moment?” The media don’t want a draw, and will rebel against this format, thinking it might not produce a winner.

For a candidate running on a common ground message, at least calling for this type of debate is essential. It would underscore the point that a new era in politics, short on ideology and long on substance, has begun. If your opponent refuses, the public will wonder what it is he is hiding. Contrary to current debate wisdom, it would be far less dangerous than the intense pressure candidates are under in the current formats, with time constraints and rules that offer no margin for error, or time to recover from an honest mistake.

A common ground campaign message calling for more open debates would be ideal at the end of a nominee’s acceptance speech at his or her party convention:

“This year marks the 150th anniversary of the historic Lincoln/Douglas debates. In 1858, both were candidates for the United States Senate from the great state of Illinois. It was a time of fierce polarization in our nation over the issue of slavery, an issue that would lead a few short years later to the Civil War.

“Lincoln and Douglas agreed to a series of debates across Illinois that year. There were seven, some lasting for many hours. Voters by the thousands came to hear the two men. There was no television or radio. There were no moderators, or panels of reporters asking questions. The two men debated face-to-face, asking each other questions and taking questions directly from the voters. They were substantive and civilized discussions, free of personal attacks and rancor.

“Today, our political debate is mired in polarized rhetoric, perpetuated by those who seek to divide our nation. Our political discourse is no longer an open and honest exchange of ideas; it is an exchange of insults, allegations, and innuendo. It is about scoring political points. It is no longer a debate about ideas to secure our future; it is about sound bites to secure a spot on cable news.

“On this anniversary of the Lincoln–Douglas debates, I ask my opponent to join me in the spirit of those meetings. Let’s go before the American people, not in scripted formats designed to minimize mistakes and maximize sound bites, but in a free and open exchange of ideas. No moderators, no media intermediaries between the voters and us. Let’s commit to an open and honest discussion, without props or gimmicks. Let’s question each other, not about our motives, but about our ideas. Let us commit to a vigorous, but civilized conversation that will be judged on the depth of the whole of our ideas, not on the basis of a single sound bite.

“Let’s debate once in the North and once in the South, once in the East and once in the West, and let’s have a final discussion in Illinois at one of the sites of the Lincoln–Douglas debates to honor their contribution to the political discourse. Let’s allow the people, not the pundits, to decide which of us is the right candidate at this moment in our history. And let us not engage in polarizing rhetoric to further expand the political battleground, but rather let us engage in a civil exchange of ideas in an attempt to find common ground.”

[Alternative close] “And after the debates are over, let it be said of us that we did not seek to expand the battleground with more polarizing rhetoric, but rather by a free, honest, and civil exchange of ideas we helped put America once again on the road to common ground.”

Candidates from the polarizing school will detest this, because their clever canned attack lines would be subject to a response in a Lincoln–Douglas format. They’ll also hate it because success would depend on substance, not sound bites. They might hate it, but how can they reject it?

6. A COMMON GROUND CANDIDATE SHOULD PROMISE (SINCERELY) TO INCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE OTHER PARTY IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION.

Every administration in recent memory has included a token member of the opposition party in the cabinet, or some other visible job, usually in a president’s second term. At times, these appointees actually have had some influence with the president, but usually they were window dressing meant to convince the press and the public that this was an “inclusive administration.” Some were appointed because the administration saw in the token appointee an opportunity to sell a policy to the opposition. The strategy rarely worked because the opposition party (and also the token appointee) was never included in the formation of policy.

There are important reasons for the next president to include a significant number of appointments from the opposition party (so long as they do not have profound ideological objections to the president’s policies and will pledge not to undermine those policies). The margin between the majority and minority party membership in Congress is small, and it looks to remain so for several years, if not decades. As a result, polarizers in both parties have been able to use procedural hurdles, especially in the Senate, to stop legislation on important issues from passing Congress.

No legislation of consequence can hope to gain approval unless it is the product of bipartisan consensus. If the minority believes that members of their party are seriously involved in the administration’s policy-making process, the chances for passage of the resulting legislation will increase significantly.

How many times have we witnessed important policy legislation dismissed as “dead on arrival” when it reached Congress. (Think the Clinton health care reform, the Cheney energy plan. Policies developed by one party without input from the other are roadkill for polarizers. The tougher the issue, the more essential it becomes to develop an early bipartisan policy approach. If it is seen as a partisan policy dressed up to look bipartisan, it will fail, and everyone loses, especially the public. The winners are the status quo crowd, filled with polarizers.

That is why the only successful strategy in Washington is a common ground strategy, which calls for both parties to come to the table with their ideas at the beginning, not the end, of the process. Partisans argue that if their side has its brand on a common ground proposal, it gives too much credit to their opponents if they (the opponents) initiated the proposal. As opposed to what? No one gets credit if nothing is accomplished and each ends up blaming the other for failure, when in reality, both have failed. Did it ever occur to these rabid partisan troglodytes that sharing credit is still getting some credit, but it is also the right thing to do?

7. A COMMON GROUND CAMPAIGN MESSAGE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE COMMON GROUND SOLUTIONS.

In order to secure at least a chance for a common ground governing mandate, a candidate running on a common ground message will have to convince the voters, and a skeptical press, that it can be done. The explanation will be particularly scorned by polarizers, since finding common ground consensus on issues that have been polarized (and therefore paralyzed) is the polarizers’ greatest fear. However, they have been successful at keeping these issues polarized by keeping politicians terrified. Politicians may secretly wish for consensus, but they dare not campaign on consensus, for fear of being targeted by polarizers in their own party.

So why should a common ground candidate campaign on specific consensus solutions and risk losing their party base, which could potentially cause a drop in turnout? The answer is they shouldn’t. A common ground candidate will undoubtedly take issue positions that do not stray too far from their party’s traditional ideology, and for good reason; he or she believes them, or it is unlikely they would get the nomination. What a candidate considering a common ground campaign must understand is: a common ground campaign does not require offering common ground solutions.

The two presidential candidates in 2008, whether running on common ground or not, will still represent positions that are left of center (the Democrat) or right of center (the Republican). Hopefully, the candidates will offer fresh and/or less conventional ideas, but these are not common ground ideas. Remember, common ground is not a set of ideas; it is a process for governing that can break the paralysis that has set in after two decades of polarization.

This may sound contradictory to our point above about not running as a party candidate. Running with a message that strategically emphasizes country and deemphasizes party does not mean running away from what the candidate and his or her party believe. In any event, a presidential nominee is automatically associated in the voters’ mind with the historical political philosophy of his or her party. This is a critical point that must be understood if a candidate runs on a common ground message. We are not making the case that a successful common ground candidate must run in the ideological center.

What will draw centrist voters to a common ground candidate is not common ground solutions. What will attract votes is a commitment to common ground governing, and the willingness to do battle against polarization.

CG Governing Principles

The following is an example of a message that explains a candidate’s position on common ground governing:

“My life in public service has been guided by principles and values that are at the soul of my being. They define the ideal that is America. When I attempt to find a common ground solution to the problems facing our nation, those principles and values will be in the chair with me because they are me. I wish I could convince everyone charged by the voters to find solutions to our problems, that my principles and values are the right ones, and I will continue to try to do just that.

“But I am also guided by my responsibilities to the people who put me in office. They didn’t elect me to say, ‘It’s my way or no way,’ although I assume, because they elected me, that they prefer my way. But in the end, it is every elected person’s responsibility to try the very best they can to find solutions for our people’s needs, and not get up and walk away because they don’t always get their way. That does not serve the interests of the country.

“Every American, on almost any day, has got to make some concessions. Whether it’s dealing with a person at work who has different ideas from yours, or it’s finding an open spot in a crowded parking lot at the same time as another driver sees the spot—you have to decide whether to give the spot to the other person or take it yourself. Do you try to find common ground with the person at work, or do you insist on your idea and walk away if you don’t get your way, leaving the problem unresolved and as a result hurting your business? Most reasonable people would try to find common ground.

“If the person in the other car is elderly and you are young and alone, you have to make a value decision. Do you accept that the other person needs the spot more than you and you look for another? Or, do you rush into the spot, refusing to concede it? Most good citizens would give up the spot, not because they didn’t have a right to it, but because it was the right thing to do.

“For too many years now, most politicians in Washington have not been willing to accept any compromise in their position. They seemed to believe they are always right, and the other side is always wrong. They try to punish another point of view by turning the person holding it into an evil person. For too long now, politicians have left the table to head for the battleground rather than stay at the table to find common ground. Worse yet, many of these polarizing politicians don’t want solutions; they come to the table looking for a fight. In the end, the losers are the American people.

“Our government is in a state of paralysis because of the evil climate of polarization inflicted on it by polarizers. You ask what I mean by common ground governing? It’s very simple. It means meeting the other party at the table, bringing my values and principles with me, in an honest effort to seek common ground on issues that can no longer be ignored. I may not get everything I want, but I will stay at the table to seek consensus. Politicians have to make concessions, too, not because they like to, but because it is the right thing to do. If I leave that table and refuse to concede anything, and walk away leaving the job unfinished, then I really will have left my principles and values at the door.”

A candidate with a common ground message will be asked to explain how a common ground governing strategy would work. The following is a set of principles that are essential if consensus is to emerge on any significant issue.

CG GOVERNING PRINCIPLE ONE: THERE MUST BE AGREEMENT THAT A PROBLEM EXISTS, AND AGREEMENT ON WHAT GOAL NEEDS TO BE REACHED TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM.

Let’s use a local example before we look at federal issues. Raleigh, North Carolina, has five public school districts. Three have an average class size of thirty students; the other two average fifty students per class. Let us assume the school board in Raleigh is divided between liberal and conservative members. They agree that the two districts are overcrowded. They then agree that the goal is to bring the two districts in line with the other three districts. What is left is to agree on a solution.

The scenario may appear straightforward, but in Washington, it is rarely that easy to even agree that there is a problem. Without an agreement on what the problem is, no goals can be reached, and therefore no solutions are necessary.

There are certain issues on which both sides recognize a problem, but feel so strongly about the issue that consensus is nearly impossible. Banning handguns is an example. One side sees owning handguns as an absolute right under the Second Amendment and the only problem is the side that wants to ban the weapons. The other side thinks the Second Amendment is no longer valid and so government can—and should—ban all handguns, except those in the hands of the police and the military.

There is little chance here for common ground, so principle one is inoperable. On issues like this, where consensus is improbable it is better to back off. Doing so may well prevent emotions from governing the debate or spilling over to issues where common ground might be reached.

CG GOVERNING PRINCIPLE TWO: FOR A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED IN A COMMON GROUND CLIMATE, IT MUST CONTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE HISTORICAL ORTHODOXY OF BOTH PARTIES.

If a new president hopes to succeed at finding common ground on difficult issues, paradoxically, he will have to stake out a position during the election that is true to his core philosophy. As we mentioned above, that is necessary to win the election, but also necessary for common ground governing. Assuming principle one is in place—that is, that both sides agree there is a problem, and the goal is to solve the problem—then a president must come at the problem with a solution that ensures his party in Congress is with him.

Let’s look at a problem that reappeared in American politics in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina—poverty. Both candidates in the 2008 presidential contest are likely to accept that poverty is a continuing problem that must be addressed, despite its becoming somewhat less visible two years after the massive storm ravaged the Gulf Coast.

The candidate who is the Democrat might say this about poverty, and the role of the federal government in addressing it.

“Let me be clear on my position about what must be done to help the poor in this country. I have always believed that the federal government must continue to play a major role in alleviating poverty in this, the wealthiest country in the world. To have 37 million of our fellow Americans still living in poverty in the year 2008 is unacceptable. Government can’t walk alone on the path to ending poverty; neither can it walk away from the problem and leave the burden totally to charities or the private sector.

“Past government programs to alleviate poverty, although well intentioned, have often failed because government tried to go it alone, or failed to offer incentives to the able-bodied to escape poverty. In the last decade, however, we have seen the private sector finally begin to step in and help.

“Any successful antipoverty program in America today must involve government and the private sector working together to find common ground solutions to this daunting challenge. Therefore I propose [see poverty below].”

The emphasis on the government’s staying involved is clearly a long-standing Democratic position, but the door is open for government to work with the private sector, while also promoting individual initiative, responsibility, and accountability.

Here’s what the candidate who is the Republican might say:

“Poverty, as we witnessed after Hurricane Katrina, is still with us, and it is still unacceptable. We cannot abide 37 million of our fellow citizens living in poverty in the wealthiest nation on earth. The government programs, as well intentioned as they may have been, have failed to solve the problem.

“I don’t believe we can afford to launch another government program that is likely to fail. It is not fair to raise the expectations of those in poverty who have been promised relief in previous programs, only to see them disappointed again. Besides that, with a multibillion-dollar federal deficit, we cannot afford a new program. Our only hope is to bring the private sector to the poverty battle, while ending those programs that have clearly failed to achieve their stated objectives. Maybe it’s time for the federal government to reach out to the private sector and see if solid business practices might provide the key to help people out of poverty.”

Common ground principle one is met: an agreement that poverty is indeed a problem and something needs to be done about it. The candidate who happens to be a Republican has stayed true to his party’s belief that the free market can solve problems the government can’t. In the process, the candidate has left the door open to a common ground governing approach. Both sides agree that the poor must be responsible and accountable.

In an attempt to explain how common ground principles applied to the governing process might work, we have picked out a few issues that have traditionally caused polarization between the parties. We have attempted to illustrate some old and new ideas that might provide the basis for a common ground solution.

Before we begin, a word of caution. For common ground to work, both sides must agree there is a problem. We have to begin with a few assumptions: the parties involved genuinely want to make progress on the issue; the parties agree that continued polarization on the issue helps no one; that no attempt to seek progress could result in another voter revolt similar to 1994 and 2006; and, the toughest assumption of all, the press must not only encourage progress, but also watch and expose any polarizing elements bent on obstructing progress.

As we have noted, a common ground governing strategy does not begin with a specific proposal, but rather with an agreement on the problem and goals. After agreeing on problems and goals, a solution needs to emerge. It helps to bring some creative ideas to the table that have not already been beaten down by the polarizers, which leads to:

CG GOVERNING PRINCIPLE THREE: THE CHANCES FOR CONSENSUS ON A SOLUTION INCREASE DRAMATICALLY WHEN FRESH IDEAS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM ARE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE.

Each of the areas we explore here has been—and remains—at the heart of much political debate. Each of them has been used by political consultants and fund-raisers to energize and mobilize their respective political bases. None of them has been adequately addressed because too many politicians and consultants would rather exploit the issue than see it resolved. On most controversial issues, both parties have returned over and over again to old solutions they have been wedded to for years.

Trying to find consensus by beginning with one party’s old position will not work. On any of these issues, there are solutions that have been proposed outside the party structure that can be used as a starting point. What’s important is to use an idea that satisfies principle two—that is, it contains some aspects that both parties can reconcile with their values.

We begin with a problem our hypothetical candidates addressed above.

POVERTY

Though it can be argued that the poorest American is still “richer” and has more access to government programs and private charity than almost any other country in the world, that does not excuse our inattention to the poor. According to the Census Bureau, there were 37 million people (nearly 10 percent of our population) in poverty in 2004, up from 35.9 million in 2003. This is—or ought to be—intolerable for a rich nation like the United States. Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” sounded compassionate, even noble, but the big bureaucracies involved in that war proved incapable of offering the type of incentives necessary to help people actually climb out of poverty.

Perhaps it isn’t a big program the poor need, but a small one.

A number of conservatives say many in poverty are lazy and are addicted to drugs or alcohol, people who insist on making the kind of decisions that doom them to a life of poverty. Liberals say that most of these unfortunates were born in poverty and have no options. Each side’s position has just enough conventional wisdom in it to polarize the poverty issue.

However, whether the position of the left/right is more or less accurate is irrelevant to the millions in poverty who are desperate for a way out. Many poor people harbor entrepreneurial dreams and, with the right incentives, could realize those dreams by creating their own businesses. One of those incentives is the microloan program introduced by the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus, thirty years ago in the impoverished country of Bangladesh.

Mr. Yunus, an economist, convinced some doubtful financiers to provide funds to Yunus’s Grameen Bank, which he created to provide very small loans (a few hundred dollars or less) to people in poverty who wanted to start their own businesses. These small loans are then used to purchase a cow, kitchen utensils and a cart for mobile snack-food services, or hair dryers to start an in-home beauty parlor, etc. Interest rates are moderate to high, but are provided with no collateral beyond the borrower’s will to succeed.

The program has been a raging success, and in thirty years has spread to sixty countries, including the United States. The worldwide default rate on the loans has averaged less than 2 percent. In the United States, 13 million “micro-entrepreneurs” have received loans of $500 to $25,000 at rates that average 20 percent. The rates are high, but these borrowers don’t usually qualify for standard bank loans. AcciónUSA, a nonprofit organization that helped start the microloan program in the United States, has been followed by major lending institutions that see microloans as good business.

Both of us like the microloan approach. We believe ownership of a successful business is the best road out of poverty. Both of us believe there are millions of people currently in poverty who have, or might acquire, if they had the opportunity, the entrepreneurial spirit to be successful businesspeople. We further agree that these people, without a creative idea like microloans, have little chance of getting the capital they need to get started. Bob is further willing to agree there is little chance that the federal government will provide capital directly through a new government program.

From a common ground perspective, this idea meets most of the assumptions for a common ground success. We believe the problem of poverty is terrible and must be addressed; we believe the voters want a successful antipoverty program, and because it involves poor people, the press might be supportive; and we know the polarizers are unlikely to be satisfied with a compromise on the issue. (In this case, we will assume that even polarizers think poverty should be relieved.)

Cal loves the idea because the government is not involved (beyond perhaps helping to spread the word about microloans) and it is a pure private-sector initiative (both basic conservative orthodoxies). Bob loves the idea because it will help the poor (as does Cal), but Bob thinks the government has a role to play in making the program available to more people in poverty. His position is the same as that of the common ground candidate we mentioned earlier—that is, to provide incentives to lenders and to substantially lower the interest on the loans (20 percent is better than the Mafia, but not much). He believes the federal government should guarantee at least half the loans’ repayment in exchange for lenders lowering interest to a maximum of 10 percent (basic liberal orthodoxy).

If microloans were brought to the common ground table, both parties’ ideologies could be part of the solution. We are not going to suggest what consensus might emerge from this common ground approach, but the chances of reaching consensus are far better than, for example, Democrats trying to push through a poverty program on their own. If a microloan program funded by the private sector, but with government support, were to be instituted, most Americans would support the idea. Polarizers on the right wouldn’t because of government involvement, no matter how minimal, and polarizers on the left wouldn’t because they don’t believe the private sector wants to help the poor unless they can gouge them with exorbitant interest rates.

As microloans have grown in country after country, the concept has received increasing support from the business community, the United Nations, respected economists, financial writers, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and many others. With each new endorsement has come credibility, and favorable opinions have given the program stature, as well as protected it from detractors. That brings us to another essential weapon in the common ground arsenal.

CG GOVERNING PRINCIPLE FOUR: A COMMON GROUND STRATEGY FOR GOVERNING MUST BE PROVIDED WITH THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF POLITICAL COVER.

The increase in the federal minimum wage passed by Congress in 2007 followed many of the same common ground principles. First, there was general agreement that after ten years with no minimum-wage increase, one was due. And by combining a substantial increase in the wage (a Democratic principle) with accompanying tax breaks for small businesses that would be impacted by the increase (a Republican principle), each party’s orthodox principles were met. The consensus on the issue sent a chill through polarizers on the left and right. It wasn’t just because they opposed the details (polarizers on the right were dead set against increasing the minimum wage, while left-wing polarizers screamed about yet more business tax breaks). The shock was that it had happened at all.

If a president is elected on a common ground message, and the opposition party begins to sense political advantages to consensus and bipartisanship, polarizers will go into overdrive to protect their monopoly. If a minimum-wage increase could set them off, imagine how they might fear a new anti-poverty program like microloans. With each common ground success will come a more vicious response from polarizers. As we said earlier, this crowd is not going quietly to the fringes of politics, especially after more than two decades in the center ring.

A common ground governing strategy needs to anticipate and respect the polarizers’ counterattack, and respond by increasing the political cover for those legislators willing to seek consensus and compromise. A number of issues we touch on here will require strong political cover, and we believe one of the strongest methods of providing that cover has been used too sparingly. In a common ground governing climate, this idea needs to be better utilized.

SECOND OPINIONS

The concept of a second opinion in medicine is recognized by patients and doctors as beneficial because doctors are not infallible and a “second set of eyes” is in the best interest of the medical profession and most especially the patient.

We believe getting “second opinions” that come from outside the Washington war zone can not only help our elected officials do a better job, but will also help promote policies and actions that serve the interests of the most people, rather than the narrow and partisan interests of a select few.

As we have noted, many elected officials feel that if they extend their hand to someone on “the other side,” they risk having it cut off by interest groups who are determined to keep them under their control. If that base sees a senator or congressman who has been identified as “going off the ranch,” they will immediately denounce him as a compromiser and tell their base he lacks conviction. People are unlikely to send money to those who practice conciliation because they have been taught politics is an all-or-nothing game.

There are many experienced people who could be helpful in providing solutions—and political cover—on a number of contentious issues. For them to assist in the pursuit of common ground, they need to have the necessary stature to help the politicians who really do want to reach out to “the other side” to encounter as few obstacles as possible. To bring enough political muscle to the process, the group must be large enough to be seen as a strong political force, but small enough to be manageable.

This group of experts—equally divided among Democrats and Republicans—must be committed to finding common ground, no matter who controls the Congress or the White House. Among them should be former members of Congress or veterans of past administrations, and perhaps a former president or two who has not been too harshly critical of the currently serving president. Former members of Congress who are now lobbyists would be excluded, as would any other person with a financial or personal interest in a particular idea or policy.

The “second opinion” groups would be approved and funded by Congress through legislation, which, like any other law, would be signed or vetoed by the president. Each group would be asked to address a particularly pressing problem, and produce second-opinion remedies within six months to one year. This would not be another Washington commission whose final reports get one day of press and a thank-you from the politicians, and are then put on a shelf to gather dust.

Under a common ground approach to governing, second-opinion groups would come with different mandates for implementing their proposed solutions, which is why we don’t call them commissions. In Washington, commissions are established by Congress. Since commissions are usually formed to find solutions to problems Congress considers politically difficult, it’s no wonder that commission proposals are usually ignored. The only tool available to commission members to sell their proposed solutions to Congress is moral persuasion. When morality competes with politics, guess which usually wins?

There have been exceptions. Several commissions formed to address very big issues that the American people cared deeply about have not been ignored. For example, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which was fully funded and staffed, was composed of members who commanded respect and attention. It issued a series of recommendations on homeland security that are now law. These included the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was the largest reorganization of government departments and agencies in history. The 9/11 Commission had no force of law requiring Congress to act, but in this case, the proposals had the support of a large majority of Americans who demanded that they be carried out.

In a government committed to a common ground approach, traditional commissions would still be utilized on issues that have broad public support, as the 9/11 Commission had, because Congress would find it politically difficult to dither. But issues as big as 9/11 fortunately are rare, so stronger second-opinion formats should be developed. One would have the authority to force Congress and the White House to act; the other would not disband after its proposals were submitted. Both have precedents (with some slight differences) and both could be used to get second opinions on, for example:

BUDGETING, SPENDING, AND ABUSING THE TAXPAYERS’ MONEY

The 1994 Republican “Contract with America” pledged that the GOP would change the way things had been done in Washington under the Democrats. Republicans promised to restore fiscal sanity and accountability; they would eliminate government waste, fraud, and abuse, and they would treat the taxpayers with more respect. It didn’t take long before those promises were broken and Republicans began to outdo the Democrats with new entitlement spending and bigger deficits.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, Washington now spends nearly $22,000 per household, the highest amount (adjusted for inflation) since World War II. In 1990, federal spending was $20,000 per household. No matter which party controls Congress, or whether a Republican or Democrat occupies the White House, spending doesn’t seem to end. In fact, federal spending by the administration of President George W. Bush has been twice that of his predecessor, Bill Clinton. For 2005, the federal government spent $21,878 per household, overall, taxed $19,062 per household, and ran a budget deficit of $2,816 per household.

While government revenue continues to increase, the rate of spending, especially since September 11, 2001, rises even faster. A good percentage of the increase has been due to the war on terror, but spending on entitlement programs—old ones and new ones, like the prescription drug benefit for seniors—and record amounts of pork-barrel projects for individual members pushed the deficit ever higher and deprived Republicans of one of their biggest issues against Democrats.

President George W. Bush once told Cal he didn’t worry about the deficit because it helped hold down the tendency of Congress to spend. Unfortunately for those who care about such things, the deficit had no effect at all on Congress, which continues to find new ways to spend our money no matter who is in the majority. In the meantime, as the deficit steadily increases, the government must borrow to pay for increased spending.

Even more insane is that this is all happening just when retiring baby boomers, the most populous generation to date, are about to collect Social Security and Medicare benefits. As President Bush can attest, along with those before him, any politician who tries to reform these programs becomes a target for polarizers on the left. They know reform is necessary, but they would rather exploit the issue than find a solution.

There is a common ground way out, but it will require a president with a common ground mandate. It will require another second-opinion bipartisan group with a congressional mandate to deal with the long-term fiscal challenges, but unlike the 9/11 Commission, this group would get input from Congress, the executive branch, private-sector experts, and the public. All fiscal policy issues would be on the table. The group would then develop legislation on which Congress and the president would be required to act.

By passing legislation like this, Congress would be accepting common ground principles one (there is a real problem and it has to be fixed) and two (with a goal set to achieve fiscal sanity before the train wreck). Congress would vote on the legislation allowing only revenue-neutral amendments (any spending increases would have to be accompanied by spending cuts of the same amount). There is a precedent for second-opinion proposals that force the Congress and president to act. One is the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC).

Since 1988, Congress has enacted laws that provide for the closure of military bases, in part or in whole, and the realignment of other military related facilities. Since 1988, there have been four successive bipartisan Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions that recommended shutting down military facilities. The law establishing BRAC mandated that the number of military closures had to be voted up or down by Congress, implicitly recognizing that closing military bases facility-by-facility would be politically impossible. Making hard choices on other politically sensitive spending (particularly Social Security and Medicare) is impossible without a BRAC-type second-opinion, bipartisan group committed to common ground.

Fraud, waste, and abuse in government spending needs to be addressed by another category of second-opinion group, for which there is a precedent: the Grace Commission. Instituted by Ronald Reagan to ferret out unnecessary government spending and uncover fraud, the Grace Commission was and remains a good idea. If staffed by responsible Republicans and Democrats whose only agenda is the fiscal health of the nation, a similar group working in a common ground climate could succeed today. The Grace Commission proposed many reforms. Some were implemented, saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Others were not, ensuring that unnecessary programs and spending would continue.

When the Grace Commission disbanded, Congress felt it could return to its misspending ways. A common ground second-opinion group would keep their staff in town full-time to monitor the legislative reforms recommended by the group. Should Congress be inclined to disregard the recommendations, group members would be called back to Washington to use their stature to put public pressure on Congress to act. “But isn’t this what Congress is supposed to do with its oversight responsibilities?” Yes, but with the power of lobbyists and the temptations dangled before lawmakers to ignore their oversight responsibilities, the overseers need to be overseen.

Second-opinion groups are critical to common ground governing. There is hardly an issue before government that could not be shaped by one of the three types of second-opinion groups (the third being the 9/11 big-issue-type commission). But unless a president is elected on a common ground message, it is unlikely that the Washington polarizing community will call for a second opinion.

There are already efforts at reaching common ground on several issues despite attempts by polarizers to kill them off. Some have withstood the pressure and have produced results. Below are two examples:

HEALTH CARE

It’s peculiar to us that some members of Congress can’t practice common ground until after they have left office. Apparently, the polarizers and other special interests have too strong a grip on them while in office, but once they’re out, they feel liberated and can search for consensus.

Former Louisiana Democratic senator John Breaux has created a program and web page called “Ceasefire on Health Care.” Here is Breaux’s statement of purpose: “Ceasefire on Health Care is a campaign…to identify areas of common ground between the political parties by bringing together Republican and Democrat policymakers and key opinion leaders to ask meaningful questions about where compromise can be made.”

When we accessed the page in the fall of 2006, the first podcast listed was titled “Individual Responsibility in Managing Your Health.” Senator Breaux spoke with Peter Pitts of the Center for Medicine and the Public Interest and David Kendall of the Progressive Policy Institute about being “proactive in your health care regimen.”

That’s a refreshing change in attitude. Good health isn’t the primary responsibility of the government. It’s yours and ours. Good health begins with you and me making the right decisions about not smoking, not drinking to excess (or at all, if you’re an alcoholic), eating right, and exercising. Government plays an effective role as an information provider. Indeed, an increased focus on wellness care, which can help you avoid health problems before they develop, is needed. For example, government-required labeling of food products has been very helpful for consumers in their choice of healthy foods. However, in order for the government to help us help ourselves, we must individually utilize such information.

What about health insurance? Here are the statistics from the Census Bureau:

The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained unchanged at 15.7 percent in 2004.

The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004.

The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs rose in 2004, from 26.6 percent to 27.2 percent, driven by increases in the percentage of people with Medicaid coverage, from 12.4 percent in 2003 to 12.9 percent in 2004.

The proportion and number of uninsured children did not change in 2004, remaining at 11.2 percent, or 8.3 million.

It is true that under federal law, no one can be turned away from a hospital emergency room. This is usually the only option for the poor. Add to that the burden illegal aliens are placing on our health care system (some hospitals in California have been forced to close because they can no longer afford to provide increasing levels of free care) and it is easy to see why the burden on the health care system of so many people without health insurance can rightly be labeled a crisis.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate in 2008, signed into law in April 2006 a bill requiring all Massachusetts residents to purchase health insurance. Romney portrayed the measure as a historic solution to health care costs, even as some questioned whether it would end up costing more than the state can afford. The measure makes Massachusetts the first state to treat health insurance like car insurance. The law requires every citizen of Massachusetts to have health insurance and fines anyone who does not. Some observers say the plan promises a huge array of low-cost health insurance policies for the uninsured to buy, all subsidized by the state, and in some cases covered entirely by state government.

While the devil is clearly in the details of this bill, and in how it will be paid for, the fact that Republicans and Democrats could address health insurance as fellow citizens and not enemy combatants is a welcome step forward. Even if the government fully pays for the measure and it subsequently proves impossible, legislators have demonstrated a spirit of cooperating on a controversial issue that could serve them and the people of Massachusetts in future endeavors, which is what politicians are supposed to do.

We don’t pretend to have all the answers to questions about health care and health insurance, but we think we can safely say that we will never find any in a contentious atmosphere. Talking beats fighting, and Mitt Romney and Republican and Democratic legislators, as well as John Breaux, have shown the way.

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION

All new majorities in Congress and new presidents entering the White House promise they will be more ethical than the people they are replacing. It rarely turns out this way. Every administration and every Congress seem to have someone—a presidential staff member, a cabinet member, a congressman or senator, and sometimes the president himself—who gets into trouble. A lot of this is due to the sense of entitlement on the part of public servants who forget that they are supposed to serve the public, not themselves.

The press pays attention to, and often incites, high-level indictments leading to resignation, impeachment, and prison, but much of the corruption in Washington is below the radar. For every Jack Abramoff trading for government contracts worth millions, there are hundreds trading favors for government contracts worth thousands. Writer Michael Kinsley famously observed that the scandal in Washington is not what’s illegal, but what’s legal. In other words, many of the practices that are permitted legally in Washington are nonetheless scandalous or corrupting.

Earmarks are one of the most outrageous and ethically questionable activities engaged in by both parties. Simply put, an “earmark” is a spending measure often slipped into a bill that serves a personal or special interest. Often, the earmark is unrelated to the main legislation to which it is attached. Virtually every member indulges in earmarks, and most members don’t try to block another member’s earmark for fear of retaliation when it comes to something they want. There are a few exceptions, such as Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, who has been tireless in his so-far fruitless efforts to end the practice.

The 109th Congress (which ended in 2006) achieved very little, but one bright light was the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. The measure was sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL) and signed into law by President Bush. It creates a type of Google search engine and database that will allow anyone to find out how his or her money is being spent. An October 2, 2006, editorial in the Washington Examiner said, “The purpose of this Web site is simple and straightforward. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is spent. By lifting the veil of secrecy that obscures government spending, taxpayers will find it easier to hold elected officials accountable.”

This comes two hundred years after Thomas Jefferson said, “We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses and consequently to control them.”

The new law is a perfect example of what can result when two people from different parties and political philosophies search for common ground on a subject that benefits the country. Taxpayers will be able to track $1 trillion in government contract and grant spending—including earmarks—by congressional district. This will empower taxpayers to hold their elected representatives and senators accountable for the way they spend our money. No longer should we have middle-of-the-night legislation getting through in secret. If ever the phrase we the people had any meaning, this law puts more power in the hands of individuals and less in the hands of Congress.

Another change we recommend is term limits, which we believe would go far to limit the corruption that affects too many members when they stay too long. Recycling trash and members of Congress is a good idea, because if left in one place too long, both begin to emit a foul odor.

The Founders never intended Congress to be a career. In the early days of our nation, people came to Washington to serve their country for limited periods of time; then they went home to real jobs. An example of what can happen when people stay too long and get out of touch with average Americans occurred when a friend of ours, former senator George McGovern (D-SD), lost his reelection bid in 1980. McGovern had been in public life almost since returning from combat in World War II. After leaving the Senate, he bought an inn in Connecticut, but it soon went bankrupt. Interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, McGovern said if he had known how difficult it was to run a business, he might have voted differently while in Congress.

It’s a funny line, but there is a lot of truth there. Senators and representatives never have to make payroll, or do a balance sheet. They can raise their own pay and provide themselves with health care and retirement benefits. Washington is a place where one can quickly lose touch. Term limits would lessen the opportunities for giving in to the numerous available temptations. Unfortunately, members of Congress would have to vote for term limits, and there has never been a majority with sufficient interest in doing so.

We also think it is time to consider term limits on federal judges, including these who serve on the Supreme Court. Under the proposal, judges would be limited to fourteen-year terms. If, after fourteen years, a judge wishes to stay in office, he or she must be renominated by the sitting president, and then reconfirmed by the Senate. There are practical difficulties with this proposal, including the fact that each year several federal bench seats become vacant by promotion to another federal judicial appointment, or because of retirement, or death. However, because these are lifetime political appointments, judges are often the prime targets for polarizers.

SOCIAL ISSUES

Nothing can fuel polarization more quickly than social issues. As we have noted, the evidence suggests that social issues will play a smaller role in the 2008 elections than in previous campaigns. A common ground candidate for president will undoubtedly take positions on most of them in the course of the campaign. But to the greatest extent possible, a common ground message on social issues should emphasize that social issues should not be allowed to poison the climate for other common ground solutions.

The likelihood that these issues will come before Congress and the White House is remote. Almost certainly they will not be issues resolved in the course of common ground governing because social issues are so polarizing that agreement among the best-intended politicians is impossible, and these issues are issues in most cases that need to be decided by the various states and the courts.

We come at social issues from two perspectives.

 

Bob’s Take:

Social issues, especially abortion and gay rights, have been the most incendiary and divisive subjects in recent years and they are used by polarizers on the left and right to raise money and fuel division. They have made Washington a stage for their confrontations. Each year there are large demonstrations by pro-life and pro-choice groups, and there are multiple gay pride parades that always lead to counterdemonstrations. Yet, with the exception of a limited number of Supreme Court rulings, neither issue is before Congress, nor has any president submitted legislation to ban abortion or gay marriage. Both are issues for states to deal with unless and until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, or a constitutional issue over reciprocity for same-sex couples “married” in one state and seeking recognition in another state comes before the Court.

These issues only add fuel to an already explosive climate of polarization. Because they are highly emotional and the groups representing them are organized and flush with money, they have succeeded in pulling the White House and Congress into the battle. Each year members of Congress, most with very strong opinions on the issues, participate in demonstrations in support of each side. Understandably, they get emotional and some fall into the darkest kind of polarizing, which demonizes the other side.

When the demonstrations end, Congress returns to legislation that has nothing to do with abortion or gay rights. But the emotions at the heart of these issues sometimes affect relationships and the ability to work on other issues. When it comes to abortion and gay rights, there is no chance that Congress or the president is going to tackle them head-on. Which leads me to suggest another common ground governing principle:

CG GOVERNING PRINCIPLE FIVE: DO NOT PICK FIGHTS WHERE THE OTHER FOUR COMMON GROUND GOVERNING PRINCIPLES DO NOT AND CANNOT APPLY.

On the issues of gay rights and abortion, there is clearly a problem that both sides recognize, but the problem is the other side! There is no agreed-upon goal. There is no new idea that will lead to a solution because in the end these are issues of conscience. Trying to get a solution based on conservative and liberal orthodoxies is impossible because the positions are so deeply ingrained on both sides that there is no way to combine ideologies.

Certainly, there are things like parental notification and wider dissemination of information to pregnant women, such as the sonograms that Cal discusses next, or issues like information on benefits to gay couples. But these are all issues for the individual states to decide. Congress couldn’t implement any of the aforementioned initiatives if it wanted to, and it doesn’t want to. If we learned nothing else from the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman at the center of a battle over life-support measures, it was that Congress is the worst place to deal with these issues.

These issues can only make finding common ground in Washington on other issues much more difficult. Congress and the president have enough problems to deal with (and for which they might wish to find common ground solutions) without attempting to take on state issues that we cannot affect.

 

Cal’s Take:

If only abortion and gay rights were left to the states, I might be content. However, the Supreme Court in Roe and various state courts—in Massachusetts, for example—have circumvented the will of the people and imposed their judicial will. In Massachusetts, the state judicial court ordered the legislature to grant same-sex couples the right to marry and have all benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Every state where this issue has been on the ballot and the people allowed to vote on it has rejected elevating same-sex relationships to the level of marriage, which has traditionally been defined as a contract between a man and a woman.

According to a Pew Research Center poll released in August 2006, entitled “Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues,” it is impossible to easily label most of us when it comes to these subjects. “The public’s point of view,” says the survey,

varies from issue to issue. They are conservative in opposing gay marriage and gay adoption, liberal in favoring embryonic stem cell research and a little of both on abortion. Along with favoring no clear ideological approach on social issues, the public expresses a desire for middle ground on the most divisive social concern of the day: abortion.

Social issues reflect our deepest and most strongly-held beliefs, which is why it is so difficult to change them. They go to the heart of who we are, what we believe, our view of God and other transcendent considerations. This is why it has been so difficult for people on both sides to change minds and laws through the political system. Apparently, Americans value freedom to decide such things more than they do a top-down imposition of someone else’s views.

Abortion continues to split the country more than thirty years after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. Pew reports that while the issue continues to divide us, “there is a consensus in one key area: two out of three Americans (66%) support finding ‘a middle ground’ when it comes to abortion. Only three-in-ten (29%), by contrast, believe “there’s no room for compromise when it comes to abortion laws. The desire to find common ground extends broadly across the political and ideological spectrum.”

Abortion is the most divisive social issue since Prohibition. I believe it is the taking of human life. However, we both believe that the millions of human hours and millions of dollars that have been spent trying to reduce or stop abortion from the top have been mostly wasted. We prefer another approach.

Pro-lifers should begin a campaign similar to truth-in-labeling and truth-in-lending legislation, which mandate certain information be provided a person shopping for items at the supermarket or applying for a loan at the bank. Women should be fully informed, not only about abortion, but about the alternatives to the procedure. Many women with whom we have spoken and who have had abortions tell us they would have made a different choice had they had additional information.

We expect to get as much information as we can before making other important decisions—buying a house or car, or even where to take a vacation. Why shouldn’t women expect to be shown a sonogram of the developing baby (some surveys have shown more than 90 percent of women choose to continue the pregnancy after seeing a sonogram)?

This isn’t about restricting choice; it is about giving sufficient information so that the choice will be fully informed.

On same-sex marriage, the state offers all sorts of contracts to individuals and to associations of people. While I believe that marriage is a unique “contract” between a man and a woman, two men or two women who wish to enter into a civil contract for the purpose of buying a house, applying for credit, or simply for companionship should not be prohibited from doing so. On matters involving same-sex “marriage,” and in extreme cases such as polygamy, the state has the right, even the duty, to proscribe such arrangements as outside the boundaries of permissible social structuring.

I also believe that heterosexual people who support what they call the “sanctity” of opposite-sex marriage should do a better job of shoring up their own marriages, given the high divorce rate. They might then have more credibility when telling others how to live their lives.

These and other issues related to personal behavior may be addressed by government at the margins, but most deal with the character, integrity, and virtue of an individual, something that is beyond the power of the state to create in any of us. These things are mostly reserved for parents and religious bodies.

 

FINALLY, WE HAVE SPENT MORE THAN TWO YEARS, EVERY TWO weeks, on dozens of issues and events, trying to find common ground for our USA Today column of the same name. Of course, ours are only opinions, but even trying to find a common ground opinion is sometimes difficult. We do not pass laws or regulations, or promote other government actions. Those are decisions politicians are elected to make. In writing this book and our column, we have come to appreciate just how difficult their job is in finding solutions to complex issues, especially in a polarized climate.

We both have enormous respect for the vast number of elected officials who come to their jobs every day wanting to do the right thing. Most do want to find common ground solutions to the nation’s problems and given the opportunity to do so, free of polarizers and their endless pressures, we think they would succeed. But unless we can elect a president who campaigns and wins elections on a commitment to governing in a climate of common ground, other elected politicians are unlikely to succeed. Common ground requires a strong leader to give them the best climate in which to try.

That is why we wrote this book. We want to encourage a presidential candidate (or two or three) to include a common ground message in his or her 2008 campaign. We hope that we have provided a commonsense political case to do just that. This window of opportunity to confront polarization is short, but the timing could not be better. The voters are waiting for just such a person. We hope we have given potential common ground candidates the reasons (and some methods) to be that candidate. Any takers?

“Common Ground,” Our USA Today Column

The following is an example of our “Common Ground” column in USA Today. We are happy to report that it receives overwhelmingly favorable feedback and virtually no negative responses.

In the wake of this election, politicians are vowing to work together for a change. Let it begin with a mixer, perhaps a nice dinner. If Democrats and Republicans would talk outside of the Capitol dome, perhaps they’d get more work done inside it.

Play nice

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.

TODAY: Democrats, Republicans should break bread to break their impasse.

(Illustration by Sam Ward, USA Today)

CAL: Congratulations, Bob, on your Democrats’ impressive electoral victory.

BOB: Thanks, Cal. It was a great victory, but now the real work begins. And despite all the mudslinging and nastiness of this election year, I took great comfort in hearing so many politicians proclaim their determination to seek consensus and common ground. That may be the silver lining in what was otherwise a dismal campaign.

CAL: In his postelection news conference, President Bush used the words common ground at least half a dozen times. Even the next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, spoke of “common ground.”

BOB: I wish we could take credit for this sudden birth of comity, but voters deserve the real credit by making it clear that it’s time to end the partisan gridlock.

CAL: There could be a problem, though. After the platitudes about cooperation and “working together” subside, Democrats and Republicans will face harsh political realities. Neither side has converted the other to its point of view. So when Pelosi speaks of rushing through a Democratic agenda, the political cease-fire might end right there.

BOB: Maybe so, but I’d like to be more optimistic. These are not stupid people on either side. Surely they cannot have missed the voters’ message. The public is fed up with partisanship and wants those we elect to work together to promote the general welfare more than their own.

CAL: After every election, politicians dutifully say the right things. “We’ll work together.” “It’s time that we put aside politics and do the people’s work.” You know the drill. Yet in today’s Washington, it’s been all talk.

BOB: Despite differences, Washington used to be more collegial, but those of late who arrive in the capital have taken on a bunker mentality.

CAL: That’s right, Bob, and the most extreme ideologues on both sides not only fund their causes but pressure political leaders to draw a line and then demand that they not cross it.

BOB: And that’s where we are today.

CAL: If the politicians are serious about finding common ground, they need to get to know each other. With many incumbents leaving Washington and so many new faces arriving, it’s a chance for new members to get acquainted in ways that previous members did not. If they want to protect themselves from lobbyists and special interests that descend on Washington like locusts, they need to pursue an active social life and spend time together. It’s difficult to denounce someone as a danger to America when you’ve just had dinner with him or her. Personal relationships used to count for a lot more than they do today, and their loss has been a major reason why politics has turned ugly.

BOB: When we spoke with former congressman Tony Hall, an Ohio Democrat, he said Washington had become a “suitcase town.” Members come to work Tuesday and leave on Thursday. During those three days, they squeeze in a few fund-raisers with lobbyists. I was encouraged to hear Maryland representative Steny Hoyer, who is in the running to become House majority leader, say it was time for Congress to return to a Monday–Friday schedule, as it was several decades ago. I hope they use some of this “extra” time to get to know each other on a personal level.

CAL: At parties and social occasions in Washington, Democrats and Republicans used to reach agreement on contentious issues, and the public was the beneficiary. President Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill would sometimes quarrel during the day. By night, though, Reagan would invite O’Neill to the White House for drinks. They would try to work out their differences. Sometimes they did, sometimes not. But they had a healthy respect and even admiration for each other. Those days have vanished.

BOB: You make a valid point, Cal. Few members know each other beyond the party or ideological label applied to them. How can we expect people with different political views to find common ground if they don’t know, or trust, members of the other party?

CAL: If anything is clear from this election, it’s that the public is paying attention. As a result, lawmakers were destroyed by ethical challenges and other afflictions that can come with protracted incumbency. The public must keep the pressure on their congressperson; otherwise, the lobbyist buzzards will pick them apart like roadkill, and these newly elected “reformers” will come to resemble all of the other carcasses who have come here and met political death.

BOB: I was happy to see more people voted in this election than in most “off-year” elections, but fewer than half of eligible voters turned out. Just like the buzzards in Washington you mentioned, who move in when the people tune out, extremist voters dominate elections when mainstream voters fail to participate.

CAL: And then only the shrillest voices are heard.

BOB: Here’s another thought. If the public wants our leaders to pursue common ground, they will have to practice it themselves. If you’re a Democrat, invite a Republican to dinner (and ask him to pick up the check!). If you’re a Republican, invite a Democrat (I know, you think he’d pay with a government check!). This is how we became friends, isn’t it?

CAL: It is, indeed. Now let’s go to lunch. It’s on me.