Prime Group

If the Democrats wake up on November 8 having seized control of one or both houses of Congress, it will be for one reason – they had the better message. This is ironic, since throughout the campaign Democrats have been accused of having no message. That is wrong. Their message is: “We’re not them.”

What their critics really mean is that the Democrats have no program, which is true enough. But, in politics, if you’re the “out” party, you don’t need a program to have a message.

Politics in this country is a binary system – all zeros and ones, and voters get to pick one or the other. This keeps it easy – a good thing because voters have more interesting things on their minds – like their kids’ soccer games or who’s getting thrown off the island next week.

It has become a political cliché to say that elections are about the future. Not really. Elections are about the past – did you like it enough to continue it, or are you willing to risk the unknown? In that sense, voters in this midterm election face a dilemma. Most like their own congressman or senator enough to return him or her to office. But most are sufficiently disgusted with the status quo to want a new Congress – which can only happen with new congressmen.

Democrats understand this dilemma and have crafted their message accordingly. They’re not George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Mark Foley, or Jack Abramoff. Forget that none of those folks is on a ballot. If you don’t want more of the same, vote for something different. Vote Democratic. This may be remembered as the “election of ‘49″ – not 1949, but ‘94 in reverse. In 1994, after 40 years of control of the House, the Democrats were tossed out resoundingly by the voters who had finally had enough. Newt Gingrich got a lot of credit for this because he had crafted the Republican “Contract with America,” which helped galvanize his party’s case. But, in all likelihood, the “revolution of ’94″ would have occurred with or without Newt’s contract.

This year, the Democrats have offered no such clear-cut alternative policy. But they have understood the importance – in politics, as in business or life – of a clear, simple, unified message. And, they’ve had the courage of their non-convictions – refusing to be bullied into taking unnecessary stands by frustrated Republicans or high-minded media.

Is a “throw the bums out” election good for the country It is tempting to say the country is voting for a “pig in a poke,” but the fact is that voters seldom know in advance what a new President will do, much less a new Congress.

Will a Democratic Congress end the war in Iraq, refocus the war on terror, repeal tax cuts for the wealthy, and rid the Congress of sexual predators? Probably not. But it would restore political balance and accountability in Washington, and that’s no small matter. That’s why “we’re not them” is not only an effective message, it’s an important one.

In business and in life, we all depend on role models to help shape our decisions and behavior. Countless “how-to”? business books testify to this. I was reminded of this when I heard that President Bush’s summer reading list includes two books on Abraham Lincoln.

I suspect Lincoln is Bush’s presidential role model. After all, Lincoln faced a defining moment in our history – a mortal threat to our nation’s existence. Bush sees the “global war on terror”? as just that. Lincoln had a singular focus – to win the war at all costs. Ditto, Bush. When others wavered, or thought the cost of war was too great, or the outcome too uncertain, Lincoln was a rock. Just like Bush. Lincoln would not be deterred by constitutional niceties like habeas corpus. Bush remains determined to adopt “all necessary means”? – Lincoln’s phrase – to win the war on terror.

To those worried about the direction of Bush’s war in Iraq, the Lincoln analogue might be reassuring. But if Bush is modeling himself on Lincoln, he seems to be doing so selectively. Particularly in terms of communication with the American people, Bush would do well to study Lincoln’s example more closely.

Lincoln understood the importance of maintaining popular support for his war effort, famously asserting that, “With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.”? He also understood the importance of language in rallying the support of the nation, and no President has been more eloquent. Bush disdains eloquence, preferring to use language to convince the average American that he is one of us. Americans want their leaders to lead in words as well as in deeds, especially during wartime.

Lincoln also grasped the practical and non-ideological nature of the American people. Pressed by Abolitionist supporters to declare the Civil War one of emancipation, he refused, claiming that he would free all the slaves or none if either course would bring victory and preservation of the union. Bush insists on framing his war in Iraq as one of liberation and democracy (at least since the WMD rationale evaporated).

Lincoln’s flexibility of character helped him maintain public support throughout the Civil War. He ran through five “Generals-in-Chief”? before settling on the successful Ulysses Grant. Bush, however, seems determined to stand by failed appointees in order to avoid the perceived sin of his father – vacillation. And, in contrast to Bush’s “God is on our side”? view of world affairs, Lincoln said, “In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party.”?

Perhaps Bush should add one more book to his list: a biography of Franklin Roosevelt. The most eloquent president since Lincoln, FDR was committed to government by trial and error – always experimenting, acknowledging mistakes, correcting them, and moving on. If Bush considers Roosevelt too liberal and flexible a model, he might consider that FDR was the preferred model for a recent and, so far, more successful conservative President – Ronald Reagan.

Vladimir Lenin famously cited the principle “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs”? to justify creating a Utopian society through bloody revolution and dictatorship. For seven decades, the Communists broke a lot of eggs without producing an omelet.

But Lenin was right – to drive change, you have to break some rules and, often, some laws. Consider Google. The company is under siege by publishers for digitizing and distributing copyrighted work, and by the Bush administration for refusing to turn over individual search histories. The former is probably illegal and the latter a dangerous challenge to a President who thinks he’s Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men.

Ironically, while breaking the rules in the US, Google is timidly observing China’s rules of wholesale Internet censorship – the so-called “Great Firewall of China.”? Next time you visit Beijing, try Googling “democracy,”? and you’re likely to get the same result as placing a collect call to Osama bin Laden from New York City. Apparently, Google thinks it can make an omelet in China without breaking the yolk.

The inconsistency of these policies – one bold and rebellious, the other compliant and complicitous – says a lot about Google and the relationship between change and rule-breaking. Google’s mission statement – “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”? – is high-minded and populist. If information is power, Google promises “power to the people.”? The company further cloaks itself in righteousness with its motto of “Do no evil.”?

For Google, “Do no evil”? isn’t the same as “Break no rules.”? If society’s rules are designed to screw the little guy, Google is happy to pursue a high-profile, defiant rule-breaking strategy – in line with its commitment to avoid evil-doing and illustrative of its corporate persona as a populist defender of the common man.

But Google needs to be careful. Rules help preserve the power of the powerful, and when challenged, those interests are fierce defenders of the status quo. Ask Napster’s Shawn Fanning. While Google has plenty of economic and market power of its own, there are only so many times it can stick its finger in the eye of the ruling elite with impunity. The company is already finding that, despite its positive buzz and soaring market cap, it can’t find a well-connected Republican in Washington willing to represent its political interests. It should ask Bill Gates what being an outsider in Washington can cost a company in legal bills alone.

And Google, like a self-righteous politician (think Tom DeLay), could easily become an overstuffed political piñata for competitors, politicians, and the media. The hypocrisy of its China policy looks like the big bull’s eye on that piñata’s butt. Google is in its corporate adolescence – big growth spurt, lots of testosterone, moral certitude, and flagrant disdain for authority and rules. But adolescents who don’t learn when to play by the rules become obnoxious and, ultimately, unsuccessful adults.

Well, the Democrats did it. They won control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate on a message of “we’re not them.”? But, as effective as it was in the campaigns, “we’re not them”? is worthless as a governing message or strategy. Democrats are now like the dog that caught the fire engine – they need to quickly figure out what to do with their victory. Now that they have saved the nation from the Republicans, they need a plan to save themselves from themselves.

They’re not off to a good start. Three days after the election, The Wall Street Journalreported that Democrats “vow to probe Bush’s pre-war case, Katrina contracts, and corporate America.”? Sounds a lot like “we’re not them.”? Then incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to support anti-war activist Jack Murtha over moderate Steny Hoyer for majority leader. This was, well, stupid, as well as massively unsuccessful. Hoyer beat Murtha 149-86.

Next, Pelosi announced her support for Alcee Hastings over Jane Harman for Chair of the House Select Intelligence Committee. This despite Harman’s distinguished service as Democratic leader on that panel and Hastings’ having been impeached and convicted on multiple counts of extortion and perjury when he was a federal judge. This proved no more successful than her Murtha ploy, as last week she was forced to withdraw her support for Hastings.

So can the Democrats be saved from themselves? If so, by whom? Enter the “Blue Dogs”? – 44 moderate Democrats mostly, but not entirely, from the South. They tend to be social and fiscal conservatives who remain loyal Democrats while also working with Republicans when they think it serves the nation’s
interests. Blue Dogs may save Democrats from themselves in two important ways.

First, they are a check on unrestrained liberalism and potential abuse of power. They backed Hoyer for the Whip job and have announced their support for Harman over Hastings. And, on the issue of budget deficits, one in which Republicans have been particularly vulnerable, they have extracted a promise from Pelosi to fight for a pay-as-you-go budget plan.

Second, their willingness to forge bipartisan solutions while serving the nation could also provide Democrats a lot of cover in 2008 when they try to maintain control of Congress and take back the Presidency. Democrats would be crazy to take sole ownership of such controversial issues as an Iraq exit strategy, Social Security reform, and immigration. The Blue Dogs know none of these policies could survive a Presidential veto and, moreover, if they did, they might lead Democrats back to minority status in two years.

No doubt there will be many days over the next two years when Pelosi will be feeling a little “blue”? herself about the lack of unanimity within her party. On those occasions, however, she should thank the political gods for sending the Blue Dogs to save the party from itself. It’s time for Democrats’ to expand their message to “we’re not them… and, we’re not your father’s Democratic party, either.”?

Twenty-seven years ago, while working in the Carter White House, I directed the reorganization project that gave birth to a new federal agency: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While the idea of a single agency to coordinate the federal preparation for and response to natural disasters seems obvious now, forging political consensus behind the plan was tough.

We had to pull from more than 30 different government fiefdoms – including the Defense Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The resistance was fierce. And, because we insisted that the agency be independent, report directly to the President, and have ex-officio Cabinet status, we faced another hurdle: the need for congressional approval, which could have been avoided by tucking the agency into a larger department.

Watching the saga of FEMA’s disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, I’ve wondered what went wrong with such a good idea. The easy answer: leadership. Unlike James Lee Witt, President Clinton’s FEMA director who came to the office from a career in public service and disaster work, Michael Brown, FEMA director during Katrina, was the former head of the Arabian Horse Association, with no disaster experience. But there is another, more important explanation of what went wrong that says a lot about managing change in large organizations.

When we created FEMA, we knew that, to be effective in coordinating the assets and activities of multiple federal agencies, it needed independence, stature, and direct access to the President. President Clinton understood this and further elevated FEMA to full Cabinet status. When Witt called upon officials throughout the bureaucracy to pitch in on disaster relief, they knew he spoke with Clinton’s authority. In contrast, President Bush, in the aftermath of 9/11, downgraded FEMA’s status and made it a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an agency more concerned with terrorism than with more frequent – but less dramatic – natural disasters.

Large bureaucracies, whether government agencies or private companies, are not built for extraordinary effort. They thrive on routine. When their leaders or circumstances call for the extraordinary, they resist – sometimes massively. Leaders like Jack Welsh and Lou Gerstner have seen this when trying to reinvent GE and IBM, respectively, and President Bush got a taste of it after Katrina. The difference: Welsh and Gerstner knew that there is no chance for success unless it is clear that orders are coming from the highest level.

What does all of this mean for FEMA’s future? Simple. Take it out of DHS, and return it to independent,
Cabinet-level status. If the next disaster requiring massive federal mobilization is a dirty bomb or biological attack instead of a hurricane, FEMA will be there to respond, and that response will be more effective if the agency has the independence and clout that it needs to get the job done.