Countdown

Home > Interviews > David Gergen

David Gergen

David Gergen has been an adviser to presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. He was editor-at-large of U.S. News & World Report and a regular contributor on PBS’s The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Gergen is now the director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

John W. Mashek interviewed Gergen on May 10, 2007.

[The late California Assembly Speaker] Jess Unruh once said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. But I think he was thinking more of pint-sized rather than gallon. Is it out of control? Is the money-raising out of control?

Well, the numbers have spun so far beyond anything anyone would have imagined 20 years ago that we all get drunk on this money now. It’s not mother’s milk; it’s like a high alcoholic content. And I am not as aghast, in one sense, as some others are about the impact of money. I do think it is one filter that helps to winnow the fields. I mean, think about the Republican debate in particular, but this was also true of the Democratic debate. There were just some candidates up there who have no business being taken seriously for presidential races or for the White House. And it’s the money that’s going to force them out of the pack early. And now they get free airtime. And some of them can showcase themselves for TV shows, or to go run some lobbying outfit, or whatever it may be. But the money does help to tell who the serious [candidates] are.

Of course the flip side of this is what price do you put on democracy? There is more money raised in advertising for pet food and pharmaceutical products, probably, during the year than there is for . . .

Yeah. There are all sorts of comparisons one can make. We do spend more money on Popsicles, probably, or whatever it is — some triviality that we spend a lot more money on than for this. I think one of the big downsides is the amount of time the candidates have to spend chasing the money. And I think it discourages some good people from going in. And it also means that the candidates themselves become preoccupied with the money side. They have to go to all of these fundraisers and keep talking and talking. I do believe that it draws them away from more contemplative approaches to the presidency, trying to understand the world. I mean, it’s almost impossible for any one of these candidates to go [on] world travel, because it will take them days away from their money-raising. 

Is campaign financing dead, at least among candidates who feel they have to raise $50 million or more?

Publicly?

Yeah.

Publicly, I think it is dead. You tie one hand behind your back as a candidate; you can’t be a serious candidate if you limit yourself now in the primary stage. I am not sure it’s dead, necessarily, for the general [election], but it is in the primary. I think we have a mistaken impression that the candidates become beholden to individuals by the money-raising, that when candidates go to shake the money tree that they have sort of become hostage to certain individuals. I don’t think that’s the problem, because the limits on how much you can give are so small. But what I do think you can unfortunately find yourself tied to are the elites, because that’s where the money is. And you become more tied to an interest. And that becomes a problem, I think, for governance, because you do become more beholden. We all know that, on each side — whether it’s the gun lobby, or the evangelicals, or the small-business lobbies. So it makes health-care reform a lot tougher. Or whether it’s on the plaintiff’s bar, on the Democratic side; and there are a lot more organizations over on that side.

McCain-Feingold is headed to the Supreme Court. And Chief Justice [John] Roberts and [Associate Justice Samuel] Alito have been added since there has been a look at this. What is your feeling on McCain-Feingold as to the constitutionality of it?

I must say, I should have studied this more closely than I have. I am a sort of a fallen lawyer. But my hunch is that it’s going to pass constitutional muster and quite possibly a piece of it or something may fall. But I doubt the whole structure will fall. But I defer to others on the constitutional question.

We talked earlier about money and the amounts that stagger some people who don’t really follow politics that closely. And I am reminded that you can reach a point of diminishing returns. We certainly know that in the case of two Texans, John Connally and Phil Gramm, money didn’t do them a bit of good. So is there a possibility that money sometimes just runs out, I mean, as far as it being impressive to voters?

I think money is one of those qualities called “necessary, but not sufficient.” It gets you over the bar so that you can buy the ads. And that’s going to be hugely important. And with the big-bang primary system that we have now for 2008, when you come out of those early states, if you are in the top tier, your capacity to buy ads in New York, California, and Florida, and that sort of thing is going to be a huge, huge difference if it’s a close race.

Well, you opened the door right there to the primary schedule. We are going to know almost for sure on February 5, unless this is really a fluke cycle, who the nominees are. And then there will be a long hiatus until the conventions. And certainly the two nominees, or expected nominees, are not going to sit back, because they have seen the history of candidates being permitted to have their own candidacy, in a negative way, presented to the public. Are we going to see, from February to August and September, a torrent of ads? How do you think the candidates are going to play that?

I think what we know is you have to remain on the offense. And it’s going to be hard, because this race is always going to risk so much boredom by October. I mean, by September or October of this year, people are going to be sort of sated with seeing 10 people on each side running around the country. And then I think it will pick up right before those early New Hampshire–Iowa kind of events. But after February 5, I think it’s got a real danger [of being] less interesting for a while. And I think they are going to have to buy ads. They are going to have to do imaginative things to hold the country’s attention. 

Dave Broder has a column in today’s Washington Post in which he really excoriates this primary system and says if the parties don’t fix it after this cycle, it’s almost criminal that they are allowing states to keep hopscotching early and making a mess of things. Is that where we are headed?

Yes, I think the Florida decision was a terrible one. And the parties have a much higher responsibility to take hold of this and develop something much more rational. It’s just wrongheaded that we are going to have this whole thing over by February 5. I think it’s going to curve in ways that we don’t have a full vetting of who these candidates are, and under intense spotlights. We are going to have this long, long buildup.

I think one of the most interesting tests of the next few months is: Does Barack Obama perform? Does he rise to the occasion? Does he grow larger as an individual? And that’s a good thing we are going to have that time to test him out. But I would like to see Barack Obama, that kind of candidacy, which in some ways has very high potential as a candidate, but also has risk potential to it. You would like to see him tested.

More than in a cattle show?

Yes, more than in a cattle show. You would like to see him tested in the crucible of a real campaign that runs from January to May or something. And then you know. I mean, you would have a much better sense of whether he’s the guy who can run the country or not. And I think Hillary Clinton, this early bunching, I think it gives enormous advantages to her.

Well, some people think that because this field is so unwieldy we may see the emergence, once again, of an independent candidate. We both know the history of independent candidates is not very encouraging, even though [Ralph] Nader certainly was a spoiler in 2000. Is it likely that we will see a Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg, or even something similar to Ross Perot, who has a lot of money and gets into this thing because people are so dissatisfied and tired of the main-party candidates?

I think it’s less likely this time than we’ve seen in the past, simply because there is no individual out there who will strike those kind of sparks the way Ross Perot did. I have the highest regard for Mike Bloomberg and think he’s been a superb mayor of New York. The work that he and [New York City Department of Education Chancellor] Joel Klein are doing in reforming schools, for example, is really noble, and they’ve achieved a lot of progress. Even so, when you look at it, their recent polls show that there is very little enthusiasm in either party for Mike Bloomberg. People don’t know him much outside the East. He himself says, Can you imagine a divorced Jewish guy from New York winning the presidency? I think that’s an issue. And he can self-finance. But it’s hard to see him winning the Electoral College. Even if he were to win a plurality of votes in some states, it’s hard to see how he gets the electoral vote. If he doesn’t win the Electoral College, he doesn’t win because he won’t win in the House of Representatives. I just don’t see the individual out there right now who would.

Because the field is so wide-open, and the first time in a generation or two that we have seen no heir apparent or a sitting vice president in the race, there is a feeling that the debates next year, when we have the two candidates, might be even more important. And that the debate on the debates, which sometimes, as you know, gets out of hand, will be less so. And we’re almost certain to have the three presidential and one vice presidential. Is that sort of your feeling? What do you think about the importance of them?

I think it’s critically important we have debates. It is a place that, unlike these cattle shows we’ve had so far, you just don’t have a coherent conversation. And when you are down to two candidates, then you can go deeper. I mean, they are not perfect vehicles, but they are a lot better than anything else we have found. I also feel, though, that in this particular go-around, while the debates will be important, the landscape is going to be so shaped by Iraq and the blunders of the Bush administration [that] unless this turns around in Iraq, it’s very difficult to see how a Republican can win.

Some moderate Republicans were at the White House yesterday complaining. It almost rings of Republicans going to [Barry] Goldwater and telling Nixon: “It’s all over. Come on.”

Well, that’s right. I mean, you and I can remember this. This has all of the trappings, or it certainly has echoes, of 1976 in the post-Watergate era.

You mentioned the unwieldy situation with these early debates. It’s questionable what the size of the audience was. One person suggested that the winning candidates were Al Gore and Fred Thompson, because they weren’t there. I think there is some truth to that, because the others just get lost in the shuffle.

Well, I think that they do. I do think that there is a quality of everyone being diminished by these cattle shows. And I don’t know why we have to have so darn many of them this year, because it’s going to make . . .

Don’t you think that if one candidate gets in, the others — of course, the refusal to go to Fox [News] by the Democrats is understandable; I mean, they don’t want to play the Roger Ailes card. But for once, and particularly maybe one of the top-tier says, “OK, I’ll do it,” while the other two — I hate that expression, top-tier, but we are kind of stuck with it, three on each side — and if one of those goes in, there is an inclination by the consultants to say, “Well, we better get in there, too.”

Yeah, that’s right. No, they have to. And if the parties were stronger, they could regulate this more and have a more dignified process, and let these candidates get out among the voters and spend more time out there. I mean, they are flying in and out of Iowa. They just drop in. They parachute in. They parachute out.

Just one more question, on that primary schedule. How do you weigh those four original states to lead up to the superduper on February 5? If one candidate should come out leading in two or three of those early states that are pretty well fixed now, is that going to diminish or even make it more important the 22-state orgy on February 5?

I may have this wrong. Here is the way I size it up: If the winner of several of those primaries is someone who already has strong, big-state credentials, that’s going to make them the overwhelming favorite for the nomination. Let’s take Hillary Clinton. She is already very strong in New York. She is very strong in California. She is very strong in a place like Florida. So if she were to win three out of four, it’s going to be hard for anybody to beat her on February 5. On the other hand, if, say, a John Edwards comes in and takes Iowa, and then nips her in South Carolina, and she picks up Nevada, then February 5 becomes much more interesting. It’s one of those situations where somebody who starts winning late can still win the nomination. She could afford to possibly lose a couple of those and still win the nomination. I think, conceivably, the same thing will operate in [Rudy] Giuliani’s favor. He could lose a couple. But he could come back and win in New York and possibly win in California. That will make February 5 much more of a drama.