David Gergen's Blog, page 2

Will the end of Gadhafi sway U.S. politics?

By David Gergen and Michael Zuckerman
[image error]President Obama comments Thursday on the death of Moammar Gadhafi, Libya's longtime leader.STORY HIGHLIGHTSPresident Obama said Gadhafi's death made it a "momentous day in the history of Libya"Authors say the demise of Gadhafi won't greatly boost Obama's re-election chancesThey say Americans are focused on domestic, not foreign policy, concernsAuthors: Obama can argue that he wields force more prudently and surgically than BushEditor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter: @David_Gergen. Michael Zuckerman is his research assistant.Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- With Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's dramatic demise this Thursday morning, the world is rid of a tyrant, and a free Libya has jumped a mile forward to stability (though, as CNN's Ben Wedeman reports, there are still many more miles to go).Yet in America, we are speeding toward the 2012 presidential elections, and talk quickly turns to the political considerations here. President Obama appeared Thursday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden to celebrate this "momentous day in the history of Libya" and to declare that "one of the world's longest dictators is no more."As Obama pledged his support to Libya's future, many in the crowd and watching at home surely began to wonder about the president's own future. It is a much-discussed irony that a president elected largely around domestic concerns has gone on to amass some sterling foreign policy bona fides, while his approval on matters stateside sinks deeper and deeper. But what impact, if any, will his string of overseas successes have on his standing -- and re-election prospects -- here at home?
Nor does it help that Libya was never a particularly popular war in the first place. A March Gallup poll taken just one day after our Air Force began helping enforce the no-fly zone over Libya showed Americans approving of our involvement, 47% to 37% -- a majority, yes, but lower than every other foreign military action since Vietnam (including Grenada and Kosovo). Critics may likewise downplay how much credit the president deserves for Gadhafi's demise -- after all, there's no indication American forces took him out, the way they got al-Awlaki and, unforgettably, bin Laden.The first, most obvious answer is: not much. While you might expect a president who has bagged Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, and now Moammar Gadhafi in just under six months to be riding high in the public's estimation, foreign policy concerns simply don't register much on the public's radar these days. With the economy sputtering -- and veering dangerously toward the edge of another downturn -- voters are homed in there. AnOctober Gallup poll found 32% mentioning "unemployment/jobs" as the most important issue facing the nation, with another 31% mentioning "the economy in general." Where did "wars/fear of war" and "terrorism" stack up? Two percent eachNevertheless, there may be some political benefits in this string of successes for Obama: Even if they don't lift his approval up to dazzling heights, they fortify him against criticism on the foreign policy flank and give courage to his remaining supporters. The victories may also help firm up the president's standing as a decisive leader, a contrast that may prove helpful if he faces former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- whom rivals on both sides of the aisle like to portray as changing with the wind -- in the general election.Defense Secretary Bob Gates said in September that Obama's decision to go after bin Laden with Navy SEALs was one of the most courageous ever made by any of the eight presidents he has served -- and Obama's gamble on Libya (derided by critics quoting the characterization of "leading from behind") certainly seems to be paying off as well. His approach (later redubbed by the publication that first reported it, "leading from behind the scenes") will also bolster a campaign argument that may resonate not only with his base, but also with swing voters increasingly wary of foreign engagements: that Obama wields force much more prudently and surgically than the reckless GOP -- that he has wound down Iraq and helped win back international respect, all while delivering strong results.Still, domestic issues reign supreme, and so it's hard to say that the credit Obama will get for these successes abroad will be enough to turn back the tide of his sinking poll numbers. An August NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Obama's approval on foreign policy a positive 50% to 45%, but the same poll gave him horrendous 37% to 59% marks on the economy and a 44% to 51% disapproval overall. Since then, he's only slipped, with the latest Gallup tracking poll putting his total approval at 39% to 54%.Obama may yet get a bump from the Gadhafi news, but it's hard to imagine it overshadowing the bin Laden spike, which itself proved extraordinarily fleeting. In the meantime, if he wants to bring the numbers back up for the long haul, the president will have to find a way to transfer some of that daring success of his War Room into his domestic Cabinet.In their second terms, presidents often find themselves drifting into more and more foreign policy initiatives, both as a way to bolster their legacies and because they find that, with their domestic political capital usually spent, it's the only arena left where they can make a big impact. Obama has gone through that cycle a bit quicker than most, and it leaves one questioning what his second term would look like.Whether or not that comes to pass, he will at the very least be able to console himself that even if the voters aren't rushing to record these international victories, the history books one day will.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.

Invite One & All to See a Rising Star - Mike Zuckerman

Mike Zuckerman appears on CNN at 10:10 am Thursday to explore a blog we jointly wrote about spreading protests and income inequality in U.S. Mike is a recent honors graduate from Harvard and works closely with me.

Your Money- A Dangerous Political Game

Aired on  CNN October 15, 2011- Are our political leaders paying more attention to creating jobs or keeping their own? Stephen Moore, Chrystia Freeland, and  David Gergen tell Ali Velshi why American's trust is at an all time low, and how to fix it.

Why GOP candidates should cool it

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analystupdated 8:26 AM EST, Wed October 19, 2011[image error]Mitt Romney, left, clashes with Rick Perry during the CNN debate Tuesday.David GergenPerry won top honors Tuesday night as the most improved debater. As John King commented afterward on CNN, another stumbling performance might have knocked him out of contention -- but Perry was far better prepared and energetic.This may be a singular view, but Cain struck me as having one of his weaker nights. As all of his rivals jumped on his tax plan, his defenses seemed only to leave a haze of confusion and uncertainty. Public support for his tax plan probably peaked Tuesday night and with that, his prospects seem even more problematic.Fiery GOP debate in Las VegasOne other candidate deserves honorable mention: Michelle Bachmann. Her heartfelt support for women threatened with home foreclosure was far and away the most emotionally connective statement of the evening. Why can't more of these candidates show greater empathy toward people who are hurting in this economy? (By contrast, Romney had his worst moment when he seemed cold toward those in foreclosure troubles.)But for those who watched this debate, what stood out more than the performance of any single candidate was the continual outbreak of fights and personal insults. Democrats are used to brawls, but not Republicans. Long ago, as Gloria Borger pointed out after the debate, Ronald Reagan often invoked what he called the 11th Commandment for the GOP: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.The candidates trampled all over that commandment Tuesday night. GOP leaders must have been horrified. Who can remember a debate when a Republican front-runner like Romney has been called a liar at least three times in a party debate? When Reagan ran in 1980, he and George H.W. Bush clashed hard over issues, but it was never personal -- and when it was over, Reagan tapped Bush as his running mate. Can anyone imagine Romney tapping Perry? If there is still a Republican establishment, its members ought to call the candidates and tell them to cool it. Call No. 1 should go to Santorum: For a man so far down in the polls to continue launching personal attacks against the party front-runner is both egotistical and self-indulgent.All in all, another strong night for Mitt Romney. But those chuckles you hear are coming from Obama headquarters.

GOP debate: Time to address Occupy Wall Street

By David Gergen and Mike Zuckerman
October 18, 2011 -- Updated 1912 GMT (0312 HKT)Occupy Wall Street participants stage a protest on Times Square in New York on October 15.STORY HIGHLIGHTSWriters: GOP has ignored Occupy Wall St so far, but it has to tackle those issuesDemocrats have taken on the populist notion of income inequality, they sayAmericans getting more angry with huge gap between the top 1% versus the 99%, they sayWriters: GOP must address inequality, face reality that rising tide no longer lifts all boatsEditor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter: @David_Gergen. Michael Zuckerman is David Gergen's research assistant. Watch the GOP debate Tuesday night at 8 ET on CNN.(CNN) -- As GOP presidential candidates gather in Las Vegas Tuesday night for another key debate, pressure is mounting on them to address spreading public protests against Wall Street. How they answer could shape the political landscape from here to the November elections.Republicans haven't had to pay much attention to Occupy Wall Street till now -- they could afford to sniff that the crowds in Zuccotti Park looked more like Woodstock than Wall Street. But as demonstrations have sprung up across the U.S. and Europe, reverberating through social media and gaining more serious attention from mainstream media, politicians must pay more attention.President Obama and fellow Democrats have already leapt to the support of protesters. The cries of frustration and anger from the streets dovetail perfectly with the president's own shift leftward, populist stance, efforts to blame the rich for America's economic woes, and demands that they pay higher taxes. So perfect is the fit that some conservatives suspect that Democratic partisans are quietly fueling the protests.There are legitimate questions as to whether the president is ill serving the national interest by whipping up antagonism toward the wealthy, especially the financial services industry. Until recently, many influential Democrats (such as Sen. Chuck Schumer) joined Republicans in believing that Wall Street, serving as the financial capital of the world, was one of the nation's top assets. Yes, it became too greedy and reckless and needed tougher government scrutiny, but its vitality should be preserved.Soon after taking office, Obama summoned bankers and told them he was all that was standing between them and people with pitchforks. Today, many in New York believe the president has now taken up a pitchfork himself. What impact this alienation will have on voting behavior remains uncertain, but clearly, the president and his team believe it will help them in 2012. What better way to change the storyline for the elections?That raises the question: How will Republicans rise to the challenge? How will they frame the argument about the protesters and their underlying issues? Some in the GOP hope the protesters will disappear with the first frost, taking the controversy with them. Perhaps that will happen: They are not as well-organized nor do they have as clear an agenda as the tea partiers, so they may not be able to sustain themselves.Even if the protesters melt away, however, it appears they have already achieved an important goal: They have put income inequality on the national agenda. Yawning gaps between the top 1% versus the other 99% have been simmering as a political issue for a long time, stretching back before the Great Recession. But most middle-class Americans haven't seriously objected, whether because their sense of their current income was skewed, or because they expected they'd strike it rich one day themselves. (One poll from 2000 showed that no less than 19% considered themselves in the top 1% -- and another 20% on top of that expected they would be soon.)All that has changed now. Most Americans feel stuck, they think their kids will be worse off than they are, and they are increasingly angry. A Time magazine poll this week found that by 54% to 23%, the public approves of protests on Wall Street and beyond; by contrast, opinion about the tea party now runs 33% negative versus 27% positive. So the GOP likely can't duck addressing inequality.Newt Gingrich last week voiced sympathy for those protesting who are truly suffering. But one would think that GOP candidates would go well beyond and frankly recognize, as Alan Greenspan and some other Republicans have, that massive inequality and a lack of upward mobility are destructive to a democracy. Perhaps they don't agree, but if so, they are living in a darker past than we all thought.The evidence of yawning inequalities is now plentiful. Here are just a few factoids:-- Between 1977 and 2007, the top 1% earners' share of national income jumped from roughly 9% to 23.5%, a level only bested once in our history -- in 1928.-- The CEO-to-worker pay ratio has also skyrocketed: At the start of the 1980s, CEOs made roughly 40 times as much as bottom-rung workers; by 2010, they took home between 300 and 400 times as much.-- The divergence is even greater among the super-rich: The top 0.1% (roughly 150,000 families) now make roughly 10% of the nation's total income -- so they're pulling away even from the rest of the rich themselves.These stats are jarring, but they're not enough. If poor Americans had a nickel for every statistic that's been trotted out to diagnose the issue in the past year, we wouldn't have to worry about income inequality anymore. The hard question -- now put to the Republican free marketers, who have owned the political dialogue of late -- is what to do to narrow the inequality gap.Presumably -- and this is a logical position -- Republican candidates would oppose lowering the ceiling on the rich, preferring to lift the floor for everyone else. But that is easier said than done. First of all, even our most optimistic economists are not projecting anything above fairly modest growth over the next few years -- no game changers there.But moreover, to fall back on the single mantra of more growth as the elixir simply doesn't hack it anymore: In the new normal, a rising tide doesn't lift all boats. With massive structural changes like globalization and technology reorienting the economy, many -- particularly in rich, developed countries like our own -- find themselves mired in the mud, while others have super-duper motors that let them run off into the sunset.So, what's a good Republican to do to lift floors? Heaven forbid, some forms of government intervention may actually be necessary. That's, at least, what Ronald Reagan concluded. He became a champion of an earned income tax credit, helping to raise the income of people willing to work for meager wages. Bill Clinton expanded the Reagan program and it proved a powerful tool in closing the inequality gap in the mid-90s. If Reagan and Clinton could agree on a successful tactic to help more families enter the middle class, can't today's Republicans come up with imaginative new approaches?The issue, as most of us agree, is not really inequality so much as it is mobility, or opportunity. The vast majority of Americans -- and the presidential hopefuls on stage are certainly among them -- don't want to live in a society where everyone is held equally low; they want to live in a society where everyone has a fair opportunity to climb high.That's a moral issue as much as economic one, and our political leaders are ultimately judged not just by the way they lift the GDP, but by the way they lift the moral life of their country.The opinions in this commentary are solely those of the writers.

Bloomberg interview: politics, Occupy Wall Street, inequality

Audio from an interview Monday on Bloomberg Radio with Ken Prewitt and Tom Keene about the Occupy Wall Street protests, the political landscape, and inequality in America: Bloomberg Radio Interview 

Issues Take Center Stage For CNN

Western States, Issues Take Center Stage For CNN, WRLC DebateNews - Press ReleasesCNN anchor Anderson Cooper will moderate the Tuesday, Oct. 18 debate presented by CNN and the Western Republican Leadership Conference (WRLC). The debate, which will air live from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. (ET), will be broadcast from The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. Voters from the 16 states and territories that make up the Western region of the United States will be in the audience and will have an opportunity to pose questions directly to the candidates. Nevada will be one of the first states to vote in the Republican presidential primary process in 2012, as chosen by the Republican National Committee.

The following eight presidential contenders will participate in the debate: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

CNN's live and on-location coverage surrounding the debate will begin with CNN Newsroom on Saturday, Oct. 15 and continue through American Morning on Wednesday, Oct. 19. Programming from Las Vegas will include anchors Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Erin Burnett, John King, T.J. Holmes, and Carol Costello. CNN political contributors and analysts also on hand in Las Vegas will include Gloria Borger, Ron Brownstein, Alex Castellanos, Ari Fleischer, David Gergen and Mary Matalin. (See full programming details below).               

CNN en Español's Washington, D.C. anchor Juan Carlos López will host live analysis on that network before the debate starting at 7:45 p.m. (ET). At 8 p.m., CNN en Español will take the debate live with simultaneous interpretation followed by more analysis with CNN en Español's team of political contributors. The debate will also be carried live on CNN International.

Teresa Ulloa Ziáurriz Wins 2011 Gleitsman International Activist Award

HomeNews & EventsPress ReleasesTeresa Ulloa Ziáurriz Wins 2011 Gleitsman International Activist Award
04 OCTOBER 2011Lifelong advocate for women's rights to receive award at Nov. 1 ceremony Cambridge, MA—The Center for Public Leadership (CPL) at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) has named human rights activist Teresa Ulloa Ziáurriz this year's recipient of the Gleitsman International Activist Award for her 40 years of work fighting human trafficking and violence against women. The award and $125,000 prize, bestowed biennially to a leader who has "improved the quality of life in countries and inspired others to do the same," will be presented to Ulloa at a ceremony in Cambridge on Tuesday, November 1st.A lawyer by training, Ulloa has litigated more than 30,000 rape cases in her career. As regional director of the Coalition Against Trafficking Women's (CATW) Latin American and Caribbean division, Ulloa created the Red Alert System in Mexico in 2006. Coordinating the work of government agencies, prosecutors' offices and police departments, this system has been responsible for rescuing nearly 700 women and children from the snares of sex traffickers.Before joining CATW, Ulloa founded two legal collectives, Compañera and Defensoras Populares, A.C.; as the general coordinator of this second group, Ulloa helped exonerate 150 Mexican women who were unjustly accused of crimes. But her efforts have not been confined to the legal system: Ulloa also developed a training program designed to reduce the demand for commercial sex that targets young males. The first of its kind, this program promotes an alternative conception of male sexuality based on gender equality; nine countries throughout Central and South America have adopted the model."I am honored to be chosen for such a prestigious award," said Ulloa. "Most important, I hope that this award shines a light on the countless women of Central and South America who find themselves trapped in detestable situations. Our work may never end, but for my daughter's sake—and the sake of all daughters, wives, and mothers everywhere—I will continue this fight and remain grateful for this wonderful recognition."Casey Otis-Cote, associate director of CPL's Gleitsman Program in Leadership for Social Change, added: "For decades Teresa Ulloa Ziáurriz has been the tireless voice and advocate that women throughout Central and South America have relied on. Her diversified approach to women's rights—using legal, political, and educational means—exemplifies the leaders of social change that this award was intended to honor."Information about additional conversations and gatherings related to Ulloa's work will be announced in the coming weeks.###About the Gleitsman Citizen Activist Award
The Gleitsman International Activist Award was created in 1993 by the late Alan Gleitsman to honor leadership in social activism that has improved the quality of life in countries and inspired others to do the same. It is given biennially and includes a $125,000 prize. Past honorees include: Nelson Mandela, Muhammad Yunus, activists such as Dr. Sakena Yacoobi, founder of the Afghan Institute of Learning and, most recently, Karen Tse, founder and CEO of International Bridges to Justice.About the Center for Public Leadership
Established through a generous gift from the Wexner Foundation, the Center for Public Leadership advances the frontiers of knowledge about leadership through research and teaching, and deepens the pool of leaders for the common good through cocurricular activities that include skill-building workshops, fellowships, and programming in leadership for social change. More information is available at: www.hks.harvard.edu/leadership

Is Obama's re-election bid a hostage to Europe?

By David Gergen and Michael Zuckermanupdated 9:49 AM EST, Thu October 6, 2011STORY HIGHLIGHTSA rush of recent events is reshaping the 2012 presidential campaignAuthors say the more important factor may be the crisis in EuropeIf Europe triggers a second dip in the economy, voters will blame President Obama, they sayAuthors: President has little control over his fate if Europe crisis gets worseEditor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter:@David_Gergen. Michael Zuckerman, who graduated from Harvard College in 2010, is Gergen's assistant.(CNN) -- Even as events here in the United States are reshaping the political landscape for the 2012 presidential elections, it has become blazingly clear that what is happening in Europe may actually prove more decisive.Domestically, there has been a rat-a-tat of events that are raising the odds of Mitt Romney's winning the GOP nomination. Rick Perry's prospects have tumbled repeatedly in recent weeks, with weak debate performances, flagging poll numbers, and, most recently, the revelation by The Washington Post of a racial slur at the gates of a Perry family hunting lodge in West Texas.The damage from the debates and poll numbers are reversible, but the ranch story may yet leave a more lasting imprint -- and it may give the press more incentive to dig into his Texas past. He may yet emerge intact from that, too, but intense scrutiny can place a candidate in harsh, cruel light. As Robert Penn Warren's Willie Stark insists in "All the King's Men": "There is always something."As Perry's star fades, it has become even more apparent that he has done a couple of major favors for Romney. First off, Romney is no longer on cruise control -- he is trying harder in his public performances and connecting better. Moreover, coming from Romney's right flank, Perry has made the former Massachusetts governor seem more mainstream. That alone may not win over many delegates at a convention, but it will make Romney seem more electable as time goes on.The other key domestic event, of course, was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's decision not to run. Christie's opt-out not only spared Romney a tough rival with crossover appeal but has also set the field, unlocking many GOP donors still waiting in the wings (several of whom already seem to have come on board to Romney).Combined with Perry's troubles and flagging polls, we are seemingly back where we started with this race for the GOP nomination: There's Romney and there's everybody else.All of this is important in shaping the GOP landscape but, in terms of fall 2012, what happens over the next few months in Europe may have an even greater bearing on the outcome.Since even before James Carville's famous dictum, it's become accepted wisdom that the economy plays a commanding role in the outcome of elections. But, as The Washington Post's Ezra Klein, among others, has recently argued, what's most striking about the current situation is how little power we in America may even have over the course our economy takes in the next 13 months.As Klein points out, Greece stands on the brink of default -- with Ireland, Portugal, and perhaps even Spain and Italy poised to follow them into the abyss. If the European financial powers, chiefly Angela Merkel's Germany, do not step in to avoid catastrophe, the ensuing collapse would not only swallow the European economy, but ours along with it. Europe is too big an economy and too intertwined a trading partner for us to escape the fallout if they fail.This Damoclean sword hangs over the country and the Obama presidency in an economic landscape that, even taken in isolation, looks nowhere near rosy. Even if Europe stays afloat, many forecasters -- among them Goldman Sachs, Moody's, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch -- still believe the economy may droop dangerously close to recession in the year ahead.Coupled with the threat of a widening euro debt crisis, President Barack Obama's prospects look daunting indeed. Fair or not, leaders own the economies they preside over. And while it is easy to call the first plunge a George W. Bush recession, history suggests that, in voters' eyes at least, a second dip would belong chiefly to Obama.The danger from Europe, of course, is no reason to accept further inaction here at home. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's testimony on Capitol Hill on Tuesday underscored the ongoing frustration with Congress for political gridlock in the face of such serious challenges. On the recent protests on Wall Street, even the staid Bernanke noted they represent a citizenry increasingly "dissatisfied with the policy response in Washington." He continued: "At some level, I can't blame them."But Bernanke struck a more forlorn note when he faced questions on Europe. The Fed, he answered, was powerless in the face of the widening crisis and the American people, unfortunately, "innocent bystanders" to whatever transpires.So, too, perhaps, the president's re-election prospects. There is time yet for a turnaround, and hope that the Europeans will summon the political courage -- so sharply lacking stateside -- to do what is necessary. If they don't, we may instead see a stunning irony unfold: a president whose critics tirelessly paint him as seeking to Europeanize America, undone by the very continent he supposedly admires so much.

Is America becoming a house divided against itself?

By David Gergen and Michael Zuckermanupdated 9:28 AM EST, Wed September 28, 2011David GergenThose of us who are older -- born somewhere close to midcentury -- grew up in an America where there was a general consensus that the United States was a great nation, that you could be a success if you worked hard and played by the rules, that government had a positive role to play when trouble hit, and that politics must stop at the water's edge as we united against dangerous enemies. But with Vietnam, the tumult of the '60s and '70s, Watergate and more, our sense of common purpose began collapsing.Listen for a moment to three of the smartest observers in the country who have weighed in this week on the collapse. In this week's New York Magazine, columnist Frank Rich argues that by the late 1960s, "the bipartisan national consensus over the central role of government -- which had held firm through the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations -- was kaput. The Reagan revolution was in the wings."We also began to lose faith in ourselves and our values. In an interview with the Financial Times early this week, Professor Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School chimed in with pained observations about what is happening to American competitiveness: "This is shocking for the U.S. If you go back 100 years, you find that the U.S. was a huge pioneer in public education. ... The U.S. was a real pioneer in creating a national, very deep university system. ... The U.S. was a pioneer in the interstate highway system. ... We stepped to the plate in the past and made very, very bold investments in the fundamental environment for competitiveness. But right now, we can't seem to agree on any of these things."Or listen to William Galston, who was instrumental in helping President Clinton bridge the divides in politics. In the New Republic, he argues that the middle is shrinking in politics. In 1992, he points out, Gallup found that 43% of respondents identified themselves as moderates, 37% as conservatives, and 17% as liberals. In 2009, conservatives and liberals were each up 4% and moderates were down by 7%.Granderson: Broken gov't? Blame votersHow to fix a broken governmentDavid Frum: Why is government so broken?Similarly, a study of national election data by Alan Abramovitz found that in 1984, some 41% identified themselves at the midpoint of an ideological scale versus 10% who placed themselves at liberal or conservative extremes. By 2005, the number who identified themselves at the center had dropped to only 28%, while the number at the endpoints had risen to 23%.We continue to hear that even so, independents have the whip hand in electoral politics and we tend to assume that they are middling in their views, open to argument, and rather homogeneous. But even these assumptions seem doubtful. Frank Rich, for example, highlights a recent Pew survey that suggests that nearly half of independents are actually Democrats (21%) or Republicans (26%) who just shy away from the label, while another 20% are more populist, skeptical Democrats ("Doubting Dems"), 16% are "disaffected" voters with a highly negative view of government, and 17% are "disengaged" altogether. Not exactly a portrait of moderate unity.Surely there are many sources of the fractures in today's electorate, just as there are many social scientists more qualified to take a crack at explaining them. But one potential contributing factor comes from a fascinating piece in National Affairs by Marc Dunkelman, who fears the winnowing out of so-called "middle-tier relationships" for the American citizen.These relationships have long been, as Dunkelman puts it, "at the root of American community life," and encompass such different-minded acquaintances as "bridge partners, brothers in the Elks club, fellow members of the PTA." But these connections have withered in recent years, even as we stay close to those like-minded folks who inhabit our inner circles of friends and family, and are connected on an unprecedented scale by technology and social media to those farther away. Without these vibrant, heterogeneous "middle-tier" relationships, Dunkelman argues, it may simply be much harder to build the sense of public trust and unity that allows people to stand up to big challenges together.The good news is that, as with any self-inflicted wound, the power is in our hands to change course. And indeed there is a growing sense in the country that people are finally getting tired of this particularly rancid level of divisiveness. There is a generation rising -- singled out in a recent TIME Magazine cover story as "The Next Greatest Generation" -- that, led by its young military veterans, is eager to put aside partisan squabbles to get things done.The bipartisan group No Labels recently convened a conference call with Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz that they reported drew more than 100,000 participants. And even in Washington itself, Lamar Alexander, a senior Republican senator, recently quit his leadership post so he could devote more time to forging consensus and working across the aisle.So there is cause for hope. In the meantime, it is up to us to continue to hold those in the halls of power accountable for results and not just party orthodoxy, and to expose ourselves to people outside our handpicked inner sanctums, ideas and opinions outside our own ideologies, and even news sources different from our favorites (unless you're a regular CNN viewer, of course).Politics in this country has always been rough-and-tumble, and so it should be. But as no less a patriot than former Secretary Bob Gates reminded us last Thursday while accepting the Liberty Medal at the National Constitution Center, "The warning given a long time ago by Benjamin Franklin still applies: 'Either we hang together or we will surely all hang separately." That advice likewise applies as much to our representatives in government as it does to those to whom the founders truly entrusted the reins of power -- us.