They Think You're Stupid (4 page)

Increasing numbers of newly registered voters, including young African-Americans, refuse to identify with either party and instead consider themselves Independents. Many young people have given up on government and choose not to participate at all. That's not a solution. It's another problem. The result of this phenomenon is a growing number of people who feel
politically homeless
. This does not mean they do not identify with one of the major political parties for practical reasons. It means more and more people are discouraged, disappointed, and disgusted with politics and politicians as usual.

The new voters in Georgia--displaced Democrats, rebellious Republicans, irate Independents, and registered non-voters sitting on the sidelines--supported my campaign because they sought a new, positive voice that championed common sense solutions to the big issues.

These
new voters
are part of the
new voices
being heard across this nation. They will also be heard in Washington, D.C., and not just on election day.

The Political Parties Alienate Voters

• Both the Democrats and the Republicans have talked a long time about being inclusive and having a "big tent." Their tents are not getting bigger. They are simply getting wider, with more constituents at opposite ends of many issues. As a result, both parties are alienating more and more voters.

• The Republicans and the Democrats suffer from a deficiency of effective leadership. Leadership requires removing barriers to self-motivation, working on the right problems, and inspiring people to feel connected to the right results. The most successful businesses understand this. The political parties do not.

The Politics of Politics

• The "politics of politics" differ greatly from the "politics of business." In business, your performance is evaluated every day, every fiscal quarter, and every year. Businessmen place results ahead of politics. Politicians place politics ahead of results.

• Voters can end the "politics of politics" that diminish our chances to tackle the big issues, but only if they become more responsible owners of their government and the political process.

Lessons of 1994

• The "Republican Revolution" of 1994 made the Democrats the House minority party for the first time in forty years. Democrats could not accept the reality of defeat at that time, and they still struggle with being the minority party. Republicans are struggling with being the majority party.

We Won in 2004!

• On July 20, 2004, I achieved an impressive second-place finish in the three-way U.S. Senate Republican primary in Georgia versus two sitting U.S. Representatives. We did not win the nomination, but we did not lose. We won thousands and thousands of new voters who heard common sense solutions to the big issues.

New Voters

• The new voter phenomenon is occurring across the nation. Newly registered voters, young African-Americans, unhappy Democrats, and unhappy Republicans are refusing to strongly identify with either party.

• The result of this phenomenon is a growing number of people who feel politically homeless. More and more people are discouraged, disappointed, and disgusted with politics and politicians as usual.

Chapter Two

The
politically homeless
are voters frustrated with their favorite political party or discouraged by what they see as politics-as-usual from their party leaders and elected officials. Some of the politically homeless choose to stay with their party out of a sense of principle or tradition, but they do not actively support the party's candidates. Others leave their party and support Independent or third party candidates. Unfortunately, some choose not to participate in the political process at all. Their disappointment and disgust with what they see and hear in the political arena causes them to give up on government, our elected officials, and the possibility of aggressive policy change. A key contributor to the problem of political homelessness is the confusion caused, often intentionally, by the seemingly never-ending barrage of labels, phrases, and made-for-television sound bites we hear every day from our elected officials.

My father walked off of his family's small Tennessee dirt farm in 1943 at the age of eighteen with literally just the clothes on his back. He had no money and no car, but he did have three invaluable possessions: his belief in God, his belief in himself and his abilities, and his belief in the promise of the United States of America. Dad believed that if he worked hard enough and smart enough, he could achieve his version of the American Dream. His dream was to provide a home and food for his family and give his children a better start in life than he had. He achieved all his dreams, but it was not easy. My father worked three jobs--as a chauffeur, a barber, and a janitor--to achieve his dreams and make sure we always had a roof over our heads, food on the table, and the opportunity for my brother and me to pursue a college education.

When Dad walked off of that dirt farm, he did not consider himself a Republican and he did not consider himself a Democrat. He considered himself someone working on his American Dream. When he was eighteen, he had never heard the terms
conservative
or
liberal
,
right wing
or
left wing
. The party label did not mean much to him because a party label was not going to help him achieve his dreams.

Today someone might say Dad was "blue collar," a member of the "working class," or maybe even the "middle class." The truth is, he never looked at himself as a member of someone else's description of his class, and he did not have much time to care about someone else's label. When all your time is spent providing for your family and working on making your American Dream a reality, you do not focus on your economic situation today--you focus on building the situation you desire for tomorrow.

Soon after I turned eighteen years old, I signed up with the Selective Service and registered to vote. My early political views were shaped by my dad's views. He told me, "Don't just look at the party. Look at the people, the issues, and look at a candidate's principles and character." His open-mindedness on political issues was influenced by the fact that for more than twenty-five years he worked for a prominent Atlanta CEO. Dad's boss spoke often about business principles, how to make money, how to save money, and how to build a business. This prominent CEO was a Republican. Their professional relationship helped open Dad's eyes to the realities of being a Republican, versus the rhetoric about Republicans told for decades to Black people by the predominant Democratic Party. Dad didn't fall for the rhetoric.

Dad's advice on politics and politicians has served me well. Though I considered myself a Democrat until my early thirties, I was focused on my dreams, my family, and my career and did not spend much time watching or discussing politics. Around that time, Ronald Reagan was elected president of the United States. I was beginning to make some money in the business world, and I thought the economic policies President Reagan talked about made the most sense for businesses and my family's future.

It was easy for me to support President Reagan and the Republicans because Dad taught me to look at the candidate's character and the reasons behind his positions on the issues, instead of just party labels and sound-bite rhetoric. President Reagan's policies simply made the most sense to me. I started voting Republican in the 1980s and have always been proud of that decision.

Though my positions on the political issues have wavered little throughout my life, I honestly did not realize I was a conservative until I began my campaign for U.S. Senate. I am pro-life on the issue of abortion. I fully support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I am opposed to a government-imposed quota system on hiring practices. I believe we must replace the out-of-date federal tax code, and I believe Congress must severely cut back on its wasteful spending. But I did not know the term
conservative
defined my belief system. Prior to initial consultations with my campaign consultants when I ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, no one had ever packaged my political views into a single term.

Most people know what they believe in and their positions on the various political issues, but they do not characterize themselves according to others' pre-packaged definitions. People do not wake up each morning and say, "I am a Black conservative Republican! What a great day this will be!" Instead, they more likely wake up and think, "I have to get to work in one hour, work hard at my job, keep my job, provide for my family, and hope the government doesn't do too much today to screw up my opportunities."

The insistence by the parties, politicians, and pundits to tag everyone with a label adds to the problem of political homelessness. People do not ask to be labeled, and most people do not want to be placed within someone else's narrow confines and strict definitions of their political ideology. Like my dad, most people are not completely conservative or completely liberal in their personal political ideology. Most people just want to work hard on achieving their version of the American Dream and support political candidates who stand for
common sense solutions to the big issues
.

The meanings and connotations of many of the political labels and phrases we hear every day on the radio, on television, or use ourselves have become distorted to the point that serious, rational political discussion is often impossible. If you asked one hundred people what the words "Republican," "Democrat," "conservative," "moderate," "liberal," "rich," "poor," "working class," and "middle class" mean, you might receive one hundred different answers. Controversial issues such as affirmative action and tax cuts likewise elicit highly emotional responses. Political leaders and our elected officials toss around phrases like "tax cuts for the rich" and "government handout" with little regard for educating voters on the facts behind the issues.

Our political lexicon has been denigrated to such an extent that people interested in learning more about politics and the issues find it difficult to learn about either. We scold our children for name-calling; we should hold our political leaders responsible for the label-calling epidemic.

Unfortunately, perception in politics often becomes reality. A few years ago, I was traveling from Omaha to South Sioux City, Nebraska, to deliver a speech to the South Sioux City Chamber of Commerce. A college sophomore named Scotty accompanied me that day as part of a job shadow project at his school.

I asked Scotty, "Do you know what Republicans and Democrats are?"

He said, "Those are political parties."

"Very good," I said. "What does a Democrat stand for and what does a Republican stand for?"

Scotty replied, "A Democrat stands for the little people and a Republican stands for the rich guy."

That was not the first time I had heard that perception of the political parties from a young African-American. Just as perception differs from reality in people's thinking about the political parties, confusion also reigns in the highly politicized issue of affirmative action. So much confusion surrounds the affirmative action debate that a brief history of the issue is in order.

In March 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which established the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (PCEEO). The mission of the PCEEO was to end discrimination in employment by the federal government and its contractors. President Lyndon B. Johnson issued a similar directive in September 1965 (see text box on following page).

Though the language in President Johnson's executive order was similar to that of President Kennedy's, Johnson's order went on to abolish the PCEEO, transfer its responsibilities to the secretary of labor, and authorize the secretary of labor to "adopt such rules and regulations and issue such orders as he deems necessary and appropriate to achieve the purposes thereof."

In December 1971, President Richard M. Nixon's Labor Department issued Revised Order No. 4, which required all federal contractors to develop "an acceptable affirmative action program," including "an analysis of areas within which the contractor is deficient in the utilization of minority groups and women, and further, goals and timetables to which the contractor's good faith efforts must be directed to correct the deficiencies."

In the decades that followed, government programs at the federal, state, and local levels mandated a variety of requirements specifying preference be given to minorities in employment and in awarding of certain contracts. In addition, some universities and local school systems, as well as fire, police, and other departments throughout the country, implemented their own policies that imposed racial quotas in acceptance and hiring procedures.

Presidents Johnson and Nixon each made slight changes to President Kennedy's original executive order, though none used the word "quota." Most of the confusion over the affirmative action mandates today is the product of disparities in the numerous state and federal court rulings on the constitutionality of giving preferences based on government-mandated criteria.

To many, affirmative action has come to mean preferential treatment for minorities and reverse discrimination for Whites. The term "affirmative action" has been demagogued by those opposed to the policy to mean quotas or mandates to hire or promote employees on factors other than merit. Due to the many and varied policies of government, educational, and private entities throughout the United States, as well as the many court rulings that have been made on these policies, "affirmative action" has become in practice a meaningless yet polarizing phrase.

Even newspaper and television reporters fall prey to the use of labels and their multiple meanings. Reporters asked me numerous times during my campaign for U.S. Senate, "Do you support or oppose affirmative action?" My response was always, "That depends on what you mean by the term 'affirmative action.' Do you mean a policy of mandated hiring quotas based on sex and ethnicity, or do you mean equal access and opportunities for all citizens?"

Some reporters thought I was trying to be defensive or trying to avoid the question. I was not, however, going to help perpetuate the use of this highly polarizing term. I may not be able to educate every reporter who asks a question, but I'm not going to say I'm for or against a label that has so many meanings to so many different groups. When I denounced quotas, I didn't offend all the Black people I know. Most people--Black, White, Asian, whatever--are against quotas. At the same time, most people support removing barriers and equalizing opportunities, not outcomes.

Affirmative action stands with the economy as the most purposely confused and politicized issue in the modern political arena. When you ask an economist to define the economy or the current status of the economy, he or she will give you a much different answer than if you posed the same question to Leroy and Bessie Public. The economist will likely respond with a detailed account of current economic indicators, such as the Gross Domestic Product, unemployment rate, Consumer Confidence Index, corporate profit levels, and the status of the stock and bond markets.

Leroy and Bessie Public, however, will give you a definition that relates to their personal economic situation. If Leroy and Bessie are employed, able to pay all their bills, and can save a little money for the future, the current state of the economy is great! If they happen to be in a bad economic condition, though, and perhaps one of them has been laid off and the dollar is not stretching as far as it used to, then the economy is doing terribly.

The fact is, most people do not understand and are not aware of the myriad of metrics that provide us with the clearest possible perspective on the status of the economy. Most people tend to personalize the economic situation and feel that the status of the economy is a direct reflection on their current personal situation. Professional politicians know this, of course, and capitalize on voter misinformation and apathy with often confusing rhetoric.

That is why you often hear politicians discuss the economy in terms of jobs; jobs lost since their opponent took office and the unemployment rate are two favorites. "Jobs" is a label that appeals to people on a personal and emotional level. While the employment rate is in reality an outcome of a healthy economy, and not necessarily an indicator of economic growth in all sectors, Gross Domestic Product and the Consumer Confidence Index are obscure terms to those not familiar with the dynamics of the economy.