David Gergen's Blog, page 3

Great fun from Anderson Cooper and the gang at AC360 Mond...

Great fun from Anderson Cooper and the gang at AC360 Monday night. This whole Clooney thing has been a hoot, and deep thanks to so many for all the kind words and hearty laughs. And I've told Anderson that I plan to get even one day!

What Drives George Clooney

Photo by Sam Jones
Outside the gates of his 18th-century villa, paparazzi wait, ready to pounce. Tour boats pause as passengers snap photos. But inside, dressed in cutoffs and a T-shirt, George Clooney is relaxed and unfazed. Each summer, he retreats to this 13-bedroom piece of paradise, nestled beside Lake Como in the foothills of the Italian Alps. He has a studio here where he writes and edits his films, but mostly he loves to entertain friends. Clooney's closest buddies stretch back to before he was a star, and they come year after year for conversation, lingering meals, wine, and the freedom to let go.

In August, Clooney opened his doors to PARADE for an interview. The other guests that weekend included a human rights activist who has traveled with him to Africa and an L.A. pal of long standing. No girlfriend, no Hollywood. My tally for two days: 10 hours of sleep, 20 hours of talk, one nasty hangover, nonstop fun. Clooney, it turns out, is a master host.

Likewise, he's an engaging interview on a wide range of topics, starting with his new movie The Ides of March, a taut political drama about loyalty and betrayal, sex and power (in theaters Oct. 7). Clooney cowrote and directed the film, in which he plays an inspirational presidential candidate whose flaws—and reluctance to compromise—may bring him down; Ryan Gosling costars as the candidate's idealistic press secretary.

Clooney also delved into more personal areas: turning 50, his work in South Sudan, the roles that luck and confidence can play in life. Serious but quick to laugh, he seems to be in the midst of a life transition, aiming to move from success to lasting significance. It is easy to see why he has great friends—and why they always come back.

 
PARADE: The Ides of March, which is based on a play called Farragut North, is a cracking good story. It's also quite dark. 
It's the disappointment in the taking away of a dream. Ryan Gosling's character goes through a really insane week, and you watch how quickly good ideas can be dashed on the rocks. I've seen that happen in my industry.

Good people get caught in bad systems. And there's a lot of ambiguity.
I'm at a point where I can make films that ask questions and don't necessarily supply answers—because I don't know what the answers are. I don't know if winning at any cost is wrong or not. There are times I've thought that the end justified the means. 

There's a scene late in the film between the candidate and his press secretary that has a very sinister quality.
Grant [Heslov, one of Clooney's cowriters] and I sort of structured the movie around that scene. We were interested in taking two smart men who are very good at what they do, putting their livelihoods in jeopardy, and sticking them in a room to watch them play the most cutthroat game possible. That's a scene where nobody wins. I really liked the idea of that.

You know, we were in preproduction on this film in 2007, before the Obama election. And then we realized that a good portion of the country was elated with what happened in that election, so we had to shelve the movie until people were cynical again. I didn't think it would be quite this quick. [laughs]

Your father, Nick Clooney, ran unsuccessfully for Congress from Kentucky in 2004. Did his experience inform your film at all?
There's a scene I have with my character's wife that I sort of took directly from my father's experience. We're in the car and she asks if I'm going to take this senator on [offer him a position in return for his endorsement]. And I say, "I wasn't going to do any of this. I wasn't going to make union deals, I wasn't going to run negative ads. I can't on this one; I have to draw the line somewhere." I remember my father saying, "I'm going to have to go out and shake hands with people I wouldn't normally shake hands with [to raise funds]," and it killed him to do that. It's soul-stealing. So I thought that was an interesting thing to talk about in this film—how nobody gets in without some dealings they wouldn't normally do. Nobody.

This fall, you're starring in another film, The Descendants. But do you see yourself more as a director now?
Directing is much more satisfying to me than acting. You know, I turned 50 [in May], and I look at myself on-screen and go, "I don't look like I did when I was 40—I know that." The people I've respected most in the industry over the years—Paul Newman, for instance. I just loved the way he handled growing old on-screen. It's understanding that you're now basically a character actor. Which is fine, but you have to pay attention to it.

It's like William Holden says in Network: "It's all suddenly closer to the end than to the beginning, and death is suddenly a perceptible thing to me, with definable features." I love that line!

One theme I see in your life—not only in the way you live but also in the way you direct—is that you try to keep things simple. 
I find that as you get older, you start to simplify things in general. By the time you get a subscription toAARP, which I just got, you have some idea of who your friends are, at least.

Was getting the AARP magazine a surprise?
It shocked me—"Are you kidding?" [laughs] I told them they should do "The Sexiest Man Still Alive."

How do you continue your public life and maintain privacy?
I don't tweet, I don't go on Facebook. I think there's too much information about all of us out there. I'm liking the idea of privacy more and more. There will be funny things, like I'll read something I've said about a woman somewhere. And I haven't spoken about my relationships in 15 years. It will be something I said years ago, and they're still using it.

How did you come to buy this villa?
I was riding a motorcycle through the Alps [in June 2001], and my bike broke down. I knocked on this door, and they were nice enough to help out. The Heinz family owned it and offered to sell it to me. I said, "You think I have more money than I have." [laughs] 

I bought it as an investment. I never liked the stock market—to me it's Vegas without any of the fun parts, the girls in bikinis. I like owning dirt. You know, I spent a lot of time broke when I moved to California. So deep in my soul is still this idea of being un-employed. To me, owning land means you could sell it at some point and have money.

But you also really like spending time here.
I love the way life is spent in Italy. It's really nice to sit down and have a two-hour lunch, which the Italians do. I realized that I had spent probably 15, 20 years standing up and shoveling food down my throat. It's not about wealth; it's about taking time and actually enjoying things. All of my friends think of this as their home. They come even when I'm not here. [laughs] There's nothing that makes me prouder than this group of friends I've managed to stay very close to for a long, long time.

Do you find yourself thinking about what your legacy will be?
I'm the first person to say that it's all luck that I'm in a position where I get to pick what I want to do. But if you're in that position, it's your responsibility to pick projects that will last longer than an opening weekend, that you can look at in a couple of years and go, "Oh, that's interesting."

I'm also spending time working on the issues in South Sudan. Maybe there's some of this fame spotlight I've got that I can use elsewhere. My days are filled doing a lot of emailing and coaxing. I find it's liberating to do those kinds of things and not have to worry about my career anymore.

You've traveled a number of times to Africa, especially to Sudan, drawing attention to conditions there after decades of civil war. You also put a spotlight on the successful referendum earlier this year for South Sudan to become a state independent from Sudan. What prompted you to make this your cause?
Two million people were killed in the north-south war in Sudan before 2005. I wasn't going to stand on the sidelines and not participate. We [Clooney has traveled with organizations including the International Rescue Committee and the Enough Project] went there four times, got the Newsweek cover [Feb. 28, 2011]. I set up this satellite system on the border of Abyei, and we've had incredible success in photographing mass atrocities. The idea is, we're just going to keep the pressure on. Turning the lights on doesn't mean anything stops. But it makes it harder, and that's our job.

Going there has been dangerous for you, hasn't it?
There were times when it was hairy.

Didn't a 12-year-old kid put a gun to your head?
It was up against my throat. David Pressman [a human rights lawyer, now the director for War Crimes and Atrocities on the National -Security Council] just grabbed the gun barrel and pushed it away, saying, "Don't do that." He treated him like a 12-year-old, and that was that.

You also picked up malaria.
Yeah, that was on the first trip [which Clooney took with his father in April 2006]. That was a fun flight home. I think they had to hazmat the whole plane.

You've talked about how lucky you are. What have you learned from your failures?
It's hard when you get thumped. I've been proficient at failure. But the only thing you can do is say, "Here's what I won't do next time."

I was a baseball player in school. I had a good arm, I could catch anything, but I was having trouble hitting. I would be like, "I wonder if I'll hit it; just let me hit the ball." And then I went away for the fall, learned how to hit, and by my sophomore year I'd come to the plate and think, "I wonder where I want to hit the ball, to the left or right?" Just that little bit of skill and confidence changed everything. Well, I had to treat acting like that. I had to stop going to auditions thinking, "Oh, I hope they like me." I had to go in thinking I was the answer to their problem. You could feel the difference in the room immediately.

The greatest lesson I learned was that sometimes you have to fake it. And you have to be willing to fail.


- David Gergen for Parade magazine

David Gergen Reflects on His Candid Conversation With George Clooney

As the gates opened into George Clooney's place along Lake Como in Italy, I was apprehensive and wondered how the next two days would be. What I found was both a surprise and a delight.

Some weeks before, editors at PARADE had called to ask if I would be interested in interviewing Clooney in advance of his fall political drama. "Sure," I said, "I don't know him at all, but it sounds like a hoot." Wheels were soon in motion, as he and his team said yes. We couldn't work out a date in L.A. and out of nowhere, he invited me to come spend a weekend with him at his 18th century villa in Italy; we could do the interview there. I said yes in a nano-second: what an adventure!

Still, I harbored concerns. As I mentioned the upcoming trip to a few friends, each one knew a great deal more about his life than I did — how he grew up in Kentucky, how he started out as a jock but made his way to Hollywood on a dime, how his aunt Rosemary took him under her wing. For years he toiled with different TV series but then had a breakthrough with ER, and that catapulted him into the big time. One film success followed another, as did one girlfriend after another. Now he was a superstar, who was not only acting but producing and, more to the point, directing films. And he had become devoted to helping the utterly helpless in Sudan.  

That was the arc of his outer life, I came to see, but who was he inside? What kind of person was he? I couldn't be sure from the interviews and profiles that I devoured. They seemed to trail off about four years ago as he made himself less available to the press, struggling to maintain his privacy.

Hollywood is not my natural habitat. I have known several actors and directors over the years but have found it hard to generalize about them. One of them was Ronald Reagan, whom I worked for in the White House, and while he was a good deal more conservative than I am, I found him to be one of the best leaders I have ever known.  A few others from Hollywood also impressed, but — as in politics — there were a disproportionate number of egomaniacs and phonies.

Before my trip, Sony had allowed me to preview his new film, The Ides of March (opening October 7). I found it riveting. It's a political drama but could have just as easily been set in corporate America, as it explores the tensions between loyalty and betrayal, sex and power. Clooney co-wrote, acted and directed. Sometime soon, I hope to show it to students at the Harvard Kennedy School (my day job), as it will spark good conversation.

Still, it didn't tell me what I really wanted to know: who is George Clooney when the cameras stop? What makes him tick?  And, by the way, would I be able to keep my eyes open? This was my third trip across the Atlantic in the space of a short time, and as I landed in Milan, I was beat. Would I be a total bore? Would he look upon my presence as a total pain-in-the-ass?

He had sent his driver to fetch me, and we zoomed off on the 45-minute drive toward his villa. A narrow road winds up from the town, along the lake, homes and shops pressing in from each side, and then suddenly a gate appeared. We slipped in and down the short drive to his home. It was just after 9 a.m.

To my surprise, he was waiting there alone, reading and sipping a cup of coffee, dressed in a gray T-shirt and cut offs. He offered to make coffee, and went off to fetch a cappuccino. Then we sat outside in a brilliant sun and talked for a steady hour, chatting about this and that, starting to exchange funny stories, laughing. He was setting the tone for the weekend.

"You must want some sleep," he said, and escorted me upstairs to a bedroom suite. "You can stay here. Hope it has everything you need. When you hear a bell ringing, you will know it is time for lunch out by the pool. I hope to see you then." And he disappeared.

There were three waiting as lunch began, all casually dressed — Clooney, his friend David Pressman (a human rights lawyer, now the director for War Crimes and Atrocities on the National Security Council, who first brought Clooney to Sudan and has accompanied him on several successive missions overseas since), along with a friend of David's. The next day, another old friend of Clooney's, a lawyer from L.A., arrived. 

At that first lunch, I proposed that only when we sat down for the interview Sunday afternoon, with my tape recorder (if I could get it to work), would conversations be on the record. Everything else was off the record unless permission was granted. Everyone agreed — no one wanted to be on guard for 48 hours.

We were a small crew for the weekend — no Clooney girlfriends, no Hollywood — and together we had some of the most spirited times in memory. From start to finish, Clooney was relaxed, thoughtful, open, sometimes playful — and always generous. He was, I discovered, a master host. Our conversations ranged from film to politics, directing to acting, family to friends, the deterioration of civility in the U.S. to his hopes for Sudan. Every few moments would be punctuated by a funny story, a mischievous aside. His dad came out of radio, he explained in our interview, and taught him the importance of telling stories that were amusing...and also had a point. He always tried to keep the conversation bubbling, never boring — and as a guest, you tried to do the same.    

As we talked and then sat down with the tape running, three strong impressions emerged for me.

Clooney appears, to me at least, to be a man undergoing a life transition. His 50th birthday got his attention, especially when AARP sent him a magazine and asked him to join up. "It shocked the s--- out of me," he said in our interview. You look at that, and say okay, I have got to get going, I've got stuff I've gotta do.

Central to his transition is his approach to films. Having made it to superstardom, he feels incredibly liberated to do more of what he wants, no longer having to worry so much about career. He wants to move gradually from acting to directing, and he wants to make significant films that will last. Sure, he will occasionally play in a big film for fun, and, recognizing that films are entertainment, he will always include humor in his own productions. But he isn't as interested anymore in making a big splash at the weekend box office; rather, he wants films that will be remembered years later. The best way to go is probably through a low budget, as studios are more willing to take a chance. At a time when a box-office smash can cost some $200-300 million or so, he notes that Up in the Air was a $22 million film and The Ides of March cost about $12 million. Films like that, he thinks, may not always hit, but they often hold up.

Getting older has also prompted him, as it has others, to look toward the essence of things. Stop living with the noise in the margins and focus on what matters.  Learn to simplify.

Whether and how the sense that Clooney is "going through an interesting journey" will change his personal life is unclear. Since his marriage to Talia Balsam ended, there has been a stream of gorgeous-looking girlfriends. Paparazzi are constantly snapping pictures, people gossip, but he hasn't talked to the press about his relationships for 15 years. And he didn't start now. But I came away wondering if one day sooner than later, he might seek a lasting relationship.

A second strong impression that emerged is that George Clooney is a more serious man than I ever imagined. Just for starters, he is serious about what films should be. Covering ground we had plowed more than once over the weekend, he explained what everyone (except me) seems to know — that 1939 was the vintage year of American filmmaking: Citizen Kane, The Grapes of Wrath (filmed in '39), The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gone with the Wind are all products of that year.

But Clooney has a special fascination with a more recent era: 1965-1975. "You can go through the list of Mike Nichols, Hal Ashby, Coppola, Scorsese — you go down the list of these insanely talented filmmakers all working at the top of their game and somehow kind of competing with each other. Pakula, Lumet, I mean, you can just keep going down the list of these guys. And they were all doing really interesting films," he said.

Recently Clooney decided to give his friends a set of the best films of that decade. As he studied the list, he realized that "1964 was Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe. And 1976 was All the President's Men, Network, Taxi Driver, Bound for Glory — just, you know, brilliant films...films that were really changing the face of filmmaking. And they hold up when you see them. So I gave all my friends for Christmas the 100 best films between 1964 and '76." (See the list here).

"In general, I fell in love with that kind of filmmaking. That era was a reflection of the antiwar movement, of the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, the sexual revolution, the drug counterculture. All those things were exploding at the same time. And these films were reflections of it. They weren't leading the way; films never lead the way 'cause it takes too long to make them... But it's interesting because they show a period of time. I think we're in an interesting period in our country's history right now. We're very polarized... it's frustrating."

"So," I ask, "these are times that cry out for important films, significant films that capture..."

"I find for me that's what I want to do..." Any movie he makes now: "You know, it had better be worth your time."

Clooney is equally serious about his efforts in Sudan. When he first went, he decided to take his dad, a major television presence in the southern Ohio-Kentucky border area who was down after losing a Congressional election in 2004. David Pressman, then working for a non-profit, was to take them.

Shortly before they were to leave, the State Department issued an advisory against civilian travel to the area. They went anyway and, while there, Clooney had a harrowing experience — a 12-year-old boy put a rifle to his neck and threatened to blow his head off.  Pressman suddenly saw what was happening, strode over, and brushed the gun back.

Clooney talks of the moment to this day. And he has returned repeatedly to the problems of Sudan, recognizing that by his very presence, he can attract cameras that will show the world how innocents are being slaughtered and bring progress. Some believe that Clooney deserves part of the credit for South Sudan's recent partition as an independent country from the north.

Clooney points out that a number of his friends in Hollywood are trying to make a difference in tough hotspots — Sean Penn went and lived in Haiti for a year; Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have been to places like Pakistan; Pitt also worked hard to begin rebuilding New Orleans; Matt Damon has been engaged in clean water; Don Cheadle has done with in Sudan, Ben Affleck in the Congo. Clooney can talk in depth about each. But it's hard to point to anyone who has had greater continuity and seriousness of purpose: Even with the creation of a border in Sudan, Clooney, working with partners like Harvard, has helped to put a satellite in place that can provide graphic evidence to the world of continued violence and help to contain it.

Not surprisingly, David Pressman has joined Clooney's list of close personal friends. What is notable, however, is that Pressman is one of the few of recent vintage. The circle that he speaks about with great fondness mostly dates back to the days before he became a superstar, when, during his broke early days in Hollywood, he formed bonds with a number of people who remain close to this day. I have found in politics that you can trust a politician more if he has friends who date back a long way, pre-fame; that means he can form and keep relationships of trust with people who aren't looking for anything. If all of his friends have come since fame or fortune, watch out. I can only imagine that is even more true in Hollywood. 

Clooney, to his credit, has maintained a circle, and several of them come to see him at Lake Como year after year. "Honestly," he says, "there is nothing that makes me more proud, there's nothing I have accomplished better in my life than this group of friends. We've managed to stay very close for a long, long time." 

Fortunately for his friends, Clooney hasn't lost any of his playfulness as he has climbed the slippery ladder of success. If anything, it may have grown so that every conversation has funny tales of the past and spicy notes about today. Sitting by the lake, wine glass in hand, he loves to regale visitors with tales of pranks he has played — and those in which he has been cleverly targeted by others.

One of his favorites from his days at the villa arose from the time some years ago when Walter Cronkite was a guest for the first time. At the end of his maiden lunch, where people were casually dressed, Cronkite asked Clooney what the dress code was for dinner (I asked the same thing... who can be sure in these situations?)

"Oh, Walter," Clooney told him, "we always dress in black tie for our dinners here." This being Hollywood, Cronkite had brought a tux and when the dinner bell rang that night, he dutifully showed up in all his studs. There awaiting him at the table were all of the other guests, all dressed in bath robes. "Damn you," Cronkite said, and stomped off back to his room to take off his tux. A little while later, Cronkite returned, dressed in his bath robe. And there, of course, Clooney had ensured that every guest would now be dressed in tuxedoes and gowns. Cronkite let off a string of expletives — but they had a grand dinner. (Nick Clooney, George's dad, was there for that visit, and over the years, he and Cronkite developed ties so close that the family asked Nick to give a eulogy at Cronkite's memorial service. Many thought it was the best given.)

So it went all weekend. There were somber moments when we were talking about the tragedies that have befallen Sudan and his desire for a legacy of helping; five minutes later, I felt like I was on the set of Ocean's Eleven. Early that Sunday evening, he took the five of us out on his boat for a cruise along the lake. A paparazzi boat immediately tailed us and swung around in circles. Clooney stopped in middle and brought out champagne and cheese; eventually he persuaded the paparazzi to leave, and as night fell, we enjoyed a long, quiet conversation looking out over one of the world's most beautiful scenes. 

Coming in, we sat outside under the stars for dinner. It was pizza night and a couple offered up an eight-course meal, pizzas coming straight out of an indoor oven, each covered with fresh vegetables from the garden. Wine and talk both flowed copiously.

I lost track of time, but by 2 a.m. or so — when I was hammered and was reasonably certain that others were, too — we had become raucous. Out of nowhere, Clooney jumps out of his chair and starts climbing a fence that overlooks the lake below. From the top, fully clothed, he counted, One... two... and jumped. I heard three just before hit the water. Within seconds, he was challenging our masculinity. Okay, guys, let's see your stuff. One other guest was next up and jumped. Hell, I thought, I have an early morning plane and I don't want wet clothes. So... what choice did I have? I stripped down to my skivvies, climbed that darn fence.... And whoa, it seemed like I was 30 feet above the water. One... two... I was in the water by three. It was very dark, a little cold, but terrific. So we kept jumping.

Eventually we repaired to his kitchen in bathrobes, trying to warm up. Out came a bottle of limoncello, and the conversation flowed on until I finally crawled up to bed at 4:30.

When I left the house — with a nasty hangover — for the airport four hours later, only one other guy was up. I was sorry that I never had a chance to say goodbye, especially to the man who brought us all together. I still wasn't completely sure who he was down deep — just like I couldn't be sure exactly what made some presidents tick — but I did know this: George Clooney is a classy guy and one of the world's best hosts. No wonder his friends return year after year.  



More on Parade.com
Clooney Unveils His 100 Favorite FilmsGeorge Clooney Reveals His Top Prank of All Time

George Clooney Through the Years

Preview: George Clooney on Turning 50: I'm Now a Character Actor

PARADE has a terrific George Clooney cover story coming up in this weekend's issue.  Political analyst David Gergen interviewed the actor at his Italian villa about turning 50, dealing with failure, his philanthropy work in South Sudan and more. Here are some highlights from the PARADE story:
On continuing his public life and maintaining privacy at the same time…"I don't tweet, I don't go on Facebook. I think there's too much information about all of us out there. I'm liking the idea of privacy more and more. There will be funny things, like I'll read something I've said about a woman somewhere. And I haven't spoken about my relationships in 15 years."On turning the big 5-0 and what it means to his career…"I look at myself on-screen and go, 'I don't look like I did when I was 40–I know that.' The people I've respected most in the industry over the years — Paul Newman, for instance. I just loved the way he handled growing old on-screen. It's understanding that you're now basically a character actor."I find that as you get older, you start to simplify things in general. By the time you get a subscription to AARP, which I just got, you have some idea of who your friends are, at least. [Getting the AARP subscription] shocked me–'Are you kidding?' [laughs] I told them they should do 'The Sexiest Man Still Alive.'On his latest film, The Ides of March, where he plays an inspirational presidential candidate…"We were in preproduction on this film in 2007, before the Obama election. And then we realized that a good portion of the country was elated with what happened in that election, so we had to shelve the movie until people were cynical again. I didn't think it would be quite this quick. [laughs]"Be sure to read some exclusive extras on Parade.com, where Clooney reveals his top prank of all time AND find out what prank buddies Brad Pitt and Matt Damon used to pull on him:
http://www.parade.com/celebrity/2011/09/george-clooney-outtakes.html
PLUS: Clooney has gifted his friends with 100 of his favorites from the years 1964 to 1976, which he calls "the greatest era in filmmaking by far."  See the list here:
http://www.parade.com/celebrity/slideshows/editors-pick/george-clooney-top-100-movies.html

Rick Perry, rising or shooting star?

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analystupdated 12:44 PM EST, Tue September 13, 2011Rick Perry touches Mitt Romney's shoulder at CNN/Tea Party debate Monday.David Gergen

Mitt Romney has a better command of the facts and, at the CNN debate last night in Tampa, again won on points. But Perry has "command presence" -- that ineffable quality people look for in leaders. Especially in hard, uncertain times, people want someone strong and decisive up front, steering. Romney looks more the manager, Perry the leader.

There is something muscular, tough, almost animalistic about Perry that seems to be resonating among Republicans -- at least for the moment. It's partly the way he carries himself -- shoulders back, chest forward, a confident stride. It's partly his smile as others beat up on him. But it's mostly the way he talks -- simple, straight-to-the-point, colloquial, no qualifiers, cut the B.S. Conservatism served straight up. People are so tired of lying, pandering and political correctness that they enjoy the change: "He didn't say Ponzi scheme, did he? Wow!" He may not be book smart, but he is street smart -- and wily.

His appeal may well be limited to tea partiers and the hard right. Judging from Twitter traffic, many others who tuned in last night were horrified by what they saw. "Lock all those candidates up in the hall so they won't destroy the country," was a typical response from the left. And there were groans as well that the evening was not only too right but too white. We remain a splintered people, so that it may be exceedingly difficult for anyone to govern in the next few years.

Still, the tendency to write off Perry -- especially among the Eastern elite -- is a mistake. Last week, after his debut in the Reagan Library debate where he called Social Security a failure and a Ponzi scheme, the word went out from the commentariat that Perry was toast.

Wrong! If anything, he went up among Republican voters, not down.

For anyone who was around 30 years ago, the comparisons to the Reagan campaign of 1980 are obvious: One of the most qualified men in history (George H.W. Bush) versus an ex-Hollywood actor. Both were good men, but there was a difference: While Bush knew his stuff, Reagan knew how to lead. In uncertain times, voters in both the primaries and the general elections turned to the candidate who offered strength and decisiveness. Gerald Seib has an excellent column in today's Wall Street Journal that explores in more depth.

Let's be clear: Perry could well flame out in coming weeks. He could easily get into trouble for what he says. His tendency to shoot from the lip brings back uncomfortable memories of George W. There are those who insist that he could also get into trouble for what he may have done. His detractors in Texas are spreading the word that he plays on the edges and plays rough. His rivals are starting to dig as are out-of-state press. Will anything come of it? No one knows. Some in Texas have stirred up trouble against him for years, and he keeps winning.

Ironically, if Perry does flame out, he will have done Mitt Romney an enormous favor. Not only has Perry made Romney seem more mainstream as a candidate, but he has also lifted the quality of Romney's game -- Romney was much crisper and more animated last night than when he was on cruise control. If Romney now beats Perry for the nomination, he will have much better chops for the general election.

Still, those in the White House who are hoping that Perry is their opponent next fall should take a second look. As scary as he may seem to many, Perry could offer the tough, decisive leadership that a lot of people want in tough times.

"Outer Turmoil; Inner Strength"

SERMON GIVEN AT HARVARD'S MEMORIAL CHURCH ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2011








Good morning.

This Sunday is a day of remembrance. Ten years ago, at almost this very hour, terrorists struck in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, savagely killing more Americans than we could bear. Even today's freshmen, 7 or 8 at the time, can tell you precisely where they were when they heard -- just as many of us older can recall the moment when Walter Cronkite announced that President Kennedy had been shot. Some memories are indelible.

That September 11 also opened a door into what has become an extremely difficult, disappointing decade for this country – a stream of wars, natural disasters, economic shocks, and moments of political lunacy. We have entered "a dark wood", as Dante would call it, and we do not yet see sunlight.

Today and in those surrounding, there will be a multitude of fora where people will honor victims and their families of 9/11. We will celebrate the heroes as well -- firemen and policemen climbing up the stairs of the Twin Towers toward their deaths as others scrambled down to safety. Their stories will be told again, their pictures cherished. In other gatherings, elbows flying, we will debate what followed – a ten-year war on terror unleashed in Afghanistan and places beyond. Threats persist, as we have seen this week, but some will argue -- I am among them -- that it is time to move beyond a "war on terror" and pay closer attention at home. We must find our way out of this dark wood. The debates rage on.

But at this moment at this place, we have a different mission. Here at Memorial Church, the sermon has traditionally been an exercise in connecting the dots between the teachings of the Bible, Christian faith and contemporary experience. It is not a place to seek policy answers, as we do at the Kennedy School, but to draw wisdom about our lives from our faith.

You may then wonder why I am here. Let me assure you: so do I. And I can guarantee, so does my wife Anne. As you know, behind many a Harvard man stands a woman – laughing. Others are far more worthy to speak.

In view of this predicament, I thought it best this morning to dig back into our own memories here at this church, recalling what we learned through the teachings of our own pastor at the time, our beloved Reverend Peter J. Gomes. He is no longer here, but many of us -- when asked our denomination -- continue to answer as Skip Gates once did: "We are Gomesians, sir." We honor him best by remembering his teachings.

If he were here now, by the way, probably the first thing Peter would say is, "David, remember to keep it a little light" As you know, he believed that the central message of Christianity is not about life after death but how we live before death. And he believed that laughter must be a vital part of living, even in somber moments.

Many fondly recall what he told us one Easter service before sending out the collection plates, "The good news is that we have all the money we will ever need for Memorial Church. The bad news is that it is in your pockets!"

He loved to tell of his visits with the Queen Mother in England. How often he would introduce the subject with a twinkle, "If there is one thing neither the Queen Mother nor I can stand, it is a name dropper."

That was Peter. "The ultimate weapon," he once wrote, "in the face of evil or sorrow, sadness or death, is not stoic virtue and the stiff upper lip but laughter, for where laughter is, God cannot be far away."

So, what did Peter teach us a decade ago? And how might those lessons apply now? I will dwell here on his lessons from 9/11 but then turn to how our lives have changed since 9/11 -- and how, in my humble judgment, we should look afresh at our responsibilities as Christians.

Let us begin by retracing Peter's path. On September 9, 2001, two days before the attacks, Peter's opening sermon for the semester was based upon a lesson from Micah; that is among our lessons today. The day after the attacks, he spoke at morning prayers; his closing prayer will be our closing prayer. His first full sermon in Memorial Church after the attacks was on September 23; his lesson then, from Ecclesiasticus, is among our lessons now. And the title he chose for that first sermon after 9/11 is our title today, in his honor: "Outer Turmoil; Inner Strength".
Down deep, Peter was less shocked by the attacks then than one might suppose. In a book of his sermons from that period -- dedicated, incidentally, to his dear friend Preston Williams – he wrote that after 9/11, he was frequently asked if the horrors of that day had changed his preaching plan for the year. Everyone knew he planned his sermons for the year in the summer before. No, he responded, he didn't change his plan. Why? Because he had long believed that preaching must help people cope with a dangerous, precarious world. In John's gospel, he reminds us, Jesus famously said, "In the world ye shall have tribulation…"

That was the basis of the first point that Peter wanted us to understand about 9/11. In a time of ease and rampant materialism, he thought, too many Christians had embraced a misconception: they thought we had a deal with God. If we would live relatively good lives, God would look after America, protecting us from harm. Weren't we the chosen people, the city on a hill? So, when terror struck, people cried, "Whatever happened to our deal? Has God gone to sleep on duty? Is He AWOL? Where is God?"

But scriptures as well as history tell us something different – that life brings constant turmoil and tribulation. It goes with the territory of being human. Just look at the history of the Jews, from Egypt to the Holocaust, Peter argued. Look, too, at Ecclesiasticus from the Apocrypha, the lesson he chose for that first sermon after 9/11: "My son, if you aspire to be a servant of the Lord, prepare yourself for testing. Set a straight course and keep to it, and do not be dismayed in the face of adversity." The assumption underlying the entire passage is that life is tough, deal with it. Or as Peter liked to say about coping with adversity, "Get used to it; get over it; get on with it."

In his final book, The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus, Peter writes of a vibrant, educated woman who once came to him for counsel. She was struggling with a grim diagnosis of cancer. She had good medical care but needed help in dealing with God's mercy and her own mortality. Peter recommended that she read through all of the 150 Psalms, preferably within two or three days, and come back. She did and exclaimed, "Whoever wrote them had exactly my same sense of ups and downs, exaltation and despair." She came to understand that the Psalms, taken together, are a roller-coaster of emotions, turmoil, frustration, unfairness, anger, and yes, joy and laughter. They gave her permission to respond to God and to her cancer as the psalmists had. God hadn't disappeared for her nor for us.

Instead, argued Peter – and this was his second, basic point after 9/11 – the coming of trouble is when people rediscover that God is still there. Scripture tells us God is with us in the "valley of the shadow of death" (Psalm 23), "a very present help in trouble". (Psalm 46). Peter spoke beautifully about a God of comfort, a God who walks beside us in times of trouble.

Those of you who were here in Cambridge on that fateful September day ten years ago will remember that around 5 o'clock, something remarkable happened: about 5,000 people gathered here on the steps of Memorial church for an impromptu, ecumenical religious service. Peter spoke, as did the incoming university president, Larry Summers.

May I say parenthetically, it is important to remember that gathering for another reason. As the university searches for a successor to Peter Gomes, a few ask whether in the 21st century Harvard should continue to have this church at the center of the Yard. Those who instinctively came to these steps on that day of horror sent a resounding affirmation.

For most of us in trouble, the inner strength we seek is the power to endure. I have found that in teaching a leadership course at the Kennedy School, what students most want to talk about is how they can get through tough times – loss of a job, loss of a loved one, scandal, defeat. Harvard students are accustomed to lives of success but they harbor fears of adversity and failure. Scripture tells us that we can find that inner strength through faith – or as St. Paul says in J.B. Phillips' colorful translation, with God walking at our side, "we may be knocked down, but we are never knocked out."

Many of us might leave things there, but not Peter. He says, yes, the power to endure is important but to discover God fully during times of adversity, something more is needed: lives of compassion. This was his third major point about 9/11. In his sermons and writings, he repeatedly returned to a story about British POWs in World War II held in a Japanese prison camp on the River Kwai. They were initially very religious, praying, singing hymns and the like, trusting that God would fortify them. But God didn't deliver, and they became disillusioned and angry, giving up outward shows of faith. But after a while, the stronger men found they needed to care for the weaker, protecting them, even helping them die. And it was in those acts of compassion that they finally began to discover a spirit of God in their midst. Peter's conclusion: "The strength that God gives is available to those who care for others, for they are showing the spirit of Jesus."

Strikingly, we find that this focus on compassion was not only in Peter's sermon after 9/11 but also in his sermon just before. On that Sunday, September 9, he was greeting freshman to Harvard. He was trying to help them how to anchor their lives. Coming to an institution like this, they might assume he thought it complicated, but actually, he told them, it is simple. Turn, he said, to prophet Micah, chapter 6, verse 8 -- "He has showed you, O man, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

Notice all of the action verbs – to "do", "love" and "walk". The biblical scholar Marcus Borg interprets them to mean that even as we look to God to walk with us, we must walk with God. Through not only belief but action, we should live our lives with mercy, generosity, and kindness -- in a word, with compassion for others. By anchoring ourselves in enduring values, in effect, we increase our own capacity for endurance -- we gain "strength for the journey".

And so there, as best I can discern, are the three central lessons that Peter Gomes tried to teach us about 9/11:

*Do not make the easy assumption that if you live reasonably well, God will protect you. "In the world ye shall have tribulation."

*When adversity hits, then, God hasn't disappeared – just the opposite: that is when one learns that God can be there at your side, a refuge, a source of inner strength. "Set a straight course and keep to it, and do not be dismayed in the face of adversity."

*Finally, scripture tells us that inner strength comes not only through stoic bravery – important as that is – but also through walking with God -- acting with compassion for others who need our help.

Lessons of faith from one we have loved.

Well, you may respond, that was then. That was ten years ago on September 11, 2001. What about now? What applications should we make today, September 11, 2011? I believe these lessons have as much force and vitality today as they did then.

But the nature of the threat we face has changed so that what is required of us as people of faith has changed, too. This may seem off point and jarring on a day when we are remembering 9/11. Please forgive if I offend. But I believe that if we truly want to face up what the years have brought since that September day, it should be said.

We are being tested in a very different way than we were just after 9/11. Then we were frightened by what bad people were doing to us. Why did they hate us? Today the larger threat comes from what we are allowing to happen to each other. No one can equate the murder of some 3,000 innocents with the failure of financial institutions. But in assessing this past decade, historians may record that what happened in September, 2008 -- when the Great Recession officially began -- was as transformative as what happened in September, 2001.

Millions of our fellow citizens are now suffering, torn apart by a new turmoil. Our population has grown by 30 million since 9/11 but we actually have fewer jobs. Storefronts vacant, homes underwater, savings gone, 46 million on food stamps -- the story is too familiar. Then, too, money no longer trickles down; it is gushing up. Consider: the median net worth -- not annual income but accumulated net assets -- for an Hispanic adult is $9,100; for a black, $9,300 ...and for a white, $143,600.

These are challenges that we talk about in classrooms around Harvard. But do we talk about them enough here in Memorial Church and in other centers of worship? What do they ask of us as people of faith? What should our ethic of responsibility be in the midst of this new turmoil?

If Peter were among us still, I would like to believe that he would have spent this past summer in Plymouth preparing sermons that would double down on Micah 6:8 -- that he would urge us to embrace even more fully lives of service and compassion. President Drew Faust understands: since the day she took office, she has encouraged undergraduates to turn away from the lure of financial riches to the call of service. And it is working: three years ago, 9 percent of seniors applied to Teach for America; last spring, 18% applied. Our graduate schools are now honoring returning veterans so that some 200 now study here -- many of them the best in class. The younger generation gets it -- and we should support them.

But what more should we ask of ourselves? What does our faith ask of us in this new tribulation? After the first 9/11, all of us wanted to embrace our families. After this 9/11, how should we embrace families not our own, families who don't live in 02138?

Prospects are growing that our nation is sliding into a lost decade for our economy -- one paralleling the experience of Japan. If so, the disparities among us could present the most serious moral dilemmas we have faced since civil rights days.
I do not pose this as a way to support Democratic or Republican solutions.They have deep, genuine differences in their views but those fights should be left outside the door of this church. What we should focus on here is how our faith calls upon each of us to engage in lives of compassion, service and leadership. We dare not live in a society in which a small number of us live in sunshine but great multitudes are stuck in a "dark word". We dare not stumble into a decade in which compassion is lost, too.

We must instead return to what the prophet Micah tells us in no uncertain terms: that it is not enough to be passive, asking God to be present with us, to walk alongside us. We must act to be present with God. We must do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly at His side. The miracle of faith is that in these acts of compassion -- in doing our best to walk alongside God -- we will find, like the men on the River Kwai, that He is there walking alongside side us, too. In our pursuit of enduring virtues, we find enduring strength. And with that strength, we shall continually renew our hope for the future.

Let us close, as Peter did the morning after September 11, with this prayer:

Increase in us, O God, the spirit of neighborliness among us, that in peril, we may uphold one another, in calamity serve one another, in suffering tend one another, and in homelessness, loneliness, or exile befriend one another.Grant us brave and enduring hearts, that we may strengthen one another till the disciplines and testing of these days be ended and Thou does give again peace in our time; through Jesus Chris our Lord, Amen.

- David Gergen

AmeriCorps, today's Depression-era CCC

AmeriCorps members taking part in a team effort rake debris on June 18 after a torndao in Joplin, Missouri.

By Michael Brown and David Gergen, CNN Contributors
September 7, 2011

Michael Brown is CEO and co-founder of City Year, in which young people of all backgrounds serve a year of full-time community service, leadership development and civic engagement.

(CNN) -- Soon after taking office, Franklin Roosevelt boldly proposed the Civilian Conservation Corps as a way to create jobs and hope during the Great Depression. Within three months, not only had Congress acted but 250,000 young men were at work in the woods. The country cheered and the CCC went on to become the most popular program of the New Deal.

As President Obama and Congress seek ways to create jobs today, the lesson of the CCC should be well remembered. Skeptics will say that it was World War II, not the New Deal, that ultimately ended the Depression -- and they have a point. But what they forget is that in its early years, through the CCC and related efforts, unemployment fell sharply from 24.8% in 1933 to 14.2% in 1937. Wouldn't we celebrate that kind of change today?

The good news is that we already have a vehicle in place that resembles the CCC. It is called AmeriCorps, a program inspired by George H.W. Bush, created by Bill Clinton and expanded by George W. Bush and President Obama. AmeriCorps has its differences from the CCC: Instead of the feds recruiting and supervising, most AmeriCorps members belong to innovative nonprofits at the community level. But both the CCC and AmeriCorps promote the same idea: jobs for young people who want to help their neighbors. Both point toward fulfillment of a dream held by leaders as diverse as George Marshall and Bill Buckley: national service for all young Americans.

The bad news is that AmeriCorps is under the knife. In reducing spending -- a clear imperative for the country -- some cuts are more cruel than others. This past year, spending was reduced by $23 million and contrary to earlier promises, the number of members went down, not up. Now the danger arises that coming budget cuts will go even deeper. That would be a grave mistake.

In a dark irony, these cuts are coming just when interest is exploding. This past year, some 536,000 young people applied for jobs in AmeriCorps, a 67% increase since 2008. Three quarters were turned away, as were half of the community-based organizations that applied for the services of AmeriCorps members.

We should take great care not to kill the idealism of the younger generation. If anything, the millennial generation, those born between roughly 1978 and 2000 as the children of baby boomers, represents one of the nation's brightest hopes. Time magazine just ran a cover story on how young, returning military veterans could form the backbone of the "next greatest generation." Absolutely right, but remember: The heart could come from young people, and older as well, who volunteer and work in tough civilian jobs at home.

One of us leads City Year, a nonprofit that depends on AmeriCorps funds, and through its participants is getting strong results addressing the high school dropout crisis. The other of us (David Gergen) is a board member of City Year and Teach for America. Both organizations have been lauded by Education Secretary Arne Duncan but need more federal money to grow. Both nonprofits are also seeing a flood of new applicants they have to turn away; 47,000 college seniors last spring applied to Teach for America for 4,600 positions.

Nothing is more likely to dispirit the younger generation than a prolonged period of chronic joblessness. We are already seeing how a sense of despair and being left out can lead to social explosions in the most unlikely of places: Great Britain.

Unemployment is striking America's young people even harder than adults. Among those ages 16-24, unemployment stands at 17.7%, nearly twice the national average. It is even worse for minority youth -- 32.4% of young blacks and 19.3% of young Hispanics are unemployed. All told, nearly 3.7 million young people are looking for jobs.
U.S. companies unpatriotic not to hire?

The millennial generation is staring into the abyss of a decade lost, dreams shattered. Experts say the negative effects of long-term joblessness, low earnings and rusted skills could haunt this generation for the rest of their lives.

AmeriCorps is not a cure-all for that adversity, but it will give more hope, and research shows some impressive returns for the communities served by AmeriCorps, as well as for the members themselves. For a small living stipend and a scholarship after service is complete, AmeriCorps members meet pressing local and national needs. They invest in their country, and their country invests in them.

We also recognize the dangers here of our special pleading -- believing on one hand that government spending must shrink (and taxes rise), while on the other, asking that AmeriCorps be an exception.

But ultimately, leadership is about exercising sound judgment. What we ask of our leaders in Washington to consider is this: Do we want the idealism of this new, young generation to wither or do we want to encourage it in bringing a new flowering of national spirit? In our judgment, AmeriCorps should not be cut further -- far better to expand AmeriCorps and make it our own CCC.

Obama On The Ropes

Transcript from CNN Newsroom aired 9/05/2011:

Well, after some ugly fights on the debt ceiling, the budget, even over when the president can address Congress, some say that President Obama is getting pushed around by the Republicans. So, is the leader of the free world really letting the competition lead him around, or is there a greater strategy at work here?

I'm joined by CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen to talk about all of this.

David, thanks for joining us.

We have seen, and it's quite extraordinary when you think about it, all of the things that have been written, particularly over the weekend from the president's biggest supporters, liberal pundits, who are now worried about a crisis of leadership here. We saw Maureen Dowd's column in "The New York Times" this weekend calling it "One and Done?" saying that the president's chances of reelection, pretty slim.

What do you think? Are we seeing President Obama significantly weakened because of all this compromise?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: He's significantly weakened by the economy and the lack of jobs, and the fact that it stuck around so long. But his responses have struck people both on the right and the left as weaker than they would have expected from a person who was so strong as a candidate.

MALVEAUX: Does that hurt him significantly? Can he make up for it? What does he need to do to show a little bit more strength?

GERGEN: Well, it's so interesting, Suzanne, because I'm not sure anybody knows at this point. I'm particularly clear that his own White House doesn't know.

He has had -- going back for several years now, he tends to have terrible Augusts. And then he has very good Septembers. He bounces back in September.

Now, he's had his bad August. The question becomes, can he have a good September? I'm not sure.

Certainly this speech that is coming Thursday night is going to set the stage. But even going into the speech, this little contretemps -- and it was silly, of course -- over when he should speak, I thought he did the right thing by moving the speech. But even so, it symbolically became a sign of weakness.

And Maureen Dowd picked up on that. And there are -- I must tell you now, there are people in the Democratic Party who wonder whether there is any possibility of him stepping aside in favor of Hillary Clinton.

MALVEAUX: There has been some talk about -- I know -- and the president did something that is more than symbolic here. He just allowed the EPA regulations on air quality to be rolled back. He did not move forward with that because he agreed -- he said it could cost America jobs.

This is something that he ran against very strongly in the campaign. I mean, his heart and the speeches, the rhetoric behind that, was definitely not what we're hearing today.

Can he make those kinds of concessions and still have people to support him for 2012?

GERGEN: That's another good question. And it has undermined some of the enthusiasm among the greens on his left, certainly.

There is a powerful argument for doing what he did, but I must say, again, going back to -- I think he often makes the right decisions, it's the way he exercises power that is very problematic. Let's take this ozone decision when he decided to drop those regulations.

He would have been so much better off had he gone into a negotiation over jobs. And when that time came, that he wanted something from the Republicans, he would say, OK, listen, here's what I'm going to give you. I'm going to delay some of these regulations on air pollution, but I'll do that in exchange.

Instead, he made a preemptory concession to his right on the expectation, well, if you make a concession, that will warm them up, it will make them more easier to deal with. It doesn't work that way with these Republicans, as you well know.

They look at that as a sign of weakness and say, OK, you've given us this, what are you going to give us next? It doesn't whet their appetite for compromise.

MALVEAUX: David, really quickly here, the president is going into this speech on Thursday with 34 percent approving of the way he's dealing with the economy. What does he need to convey to the American people essentially to get his mojo back?

GERGEN: It's got to be more than a speech. It's got to be a speech that's a prelude to action, to a real deal.

People have had enough speeches, they really want to see action now. This has got to lead fairly quickly to action, some sort of agreement with the Republicans, so people can get a feel, they get a sense, we're moving on, we're actually going to move forward.

MALVEAUX: All right. David Gergen, have a good holiday. Thanks for joining us.

GERGEN: OK, Suzanne. Good to talk to you.

MALVEAUX: You too.

How Obama could be the leader in the room

By David Gergen, CNN Contributor

September 1, 2011 4:40 p.m. EDT



Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- President Obama was smart to change the date of his speech to a joint session of Congress and to do so quickly, but whether he is adopting a smart strategy for creating jobs is a much bigger, tougher question.



The fracas over the timing of his speech before Congress was both silly and trivial. At a moment when the country desperately needs more jobs, political leaders of both parties were once again back in the sandbox. For those old enough, it brought back memories of the negotiations to end the Vietnam War: For months, the parties quarreled over the shape of the table for the negotiations, not the war itself.

People ask who was at fault this time. Sorry, does it matter?



By moving a night later to Thursday in response to House Speaker John Boehner's letter, the president did the right thing. When a president speaks before Congress, he comes to their chambers as their guest; when Congress goes to see the president, they go to his offices as his guests. So, it was proper for Obama to accede to Boehner's request about timing, even though he may now compete with the Packers-Saints football game. (Note to media: Can we please refrain from saying Obama "caved"? He did no such thing.)



The White House also saw that by changing the date quickly, it could limit the story. That's a first rule of damage control.



The more important issue is whether we will actually now see action on jobs. That Democrats and Republicans came back from vacation and so quickly started a new circus, slugging it out over nothing, does not bode well. But I would submit that there is a deeper problem here.



At the moment, as the press is reporting, the debate within the Democratic Party -- and within the White House -- is whether the president should present a bold, sweeping, liberal plan for jobs and growth or whether he should present a more modest plan that makes a bow to bipartisanship.



Hard-core Democrats are clamoring for boldness, knowing there would be no chance of passage but hoping that it may rally the base for the 2012 elections. Advocates of a more cautious, bipartisan plan argue that it would be more likely to pass and would also make the president seem like the adult in the room. (Why does the White House always want him to be the adult in the room? Why not the leader?)



The trouble with both of these strategies is that they are unlikely to produce real results for real people. Clearly, the first will hit a stone wall. But there is a high probability the second will, too. There have been times in the past when the second course would have been wise -- and would have shown more leadership -- but the atmosphere has become so rancid that it likely won't work now.



If Obama puts forth a modest plan that he calls bipartisan, it will inevitably be laden with programs Democrats favor -- investment in roads, bridges, schools, etc. -- and maybe one or two tiny items Republicans like. But hard-core conservatives will immediately brand the whole thing as "the Obama plan" and dismiss it out of hand. And for the next several weeks, the president will hit the road, rallying people behind his plan, while the GOP doesn't budge.



Where does that get us in actually creating jobs? It sounds more like a recipe for allowing each party to set up its arguments for the 2012 elections. Just what we need: more posturing, more bickering, and little progress.



There is a third course that does seem to have at least a possibility of working. That is: Let the president come forward with a detailed plan that he favors. Having taken the lead, let him then ask the Republicans to come to the White House in 10 days with their own plan. (Boehner is giving a speech on the economy and jobs in Washington on September 15.) And then let them sit down at Blair House and see if they can agree on a package -- three items from the Democratic column, three from the Republican.



We have a pretty good idea of what the Republicans would want: a cutback or moratorium on regulations, tax cuts for business, and the like. Democrats won't like a lot of it, just like Republicans won't like a lot of Obama's notions.



So what? As FDR saw, what is important is to try something, experiment, give hope. Otherwise, with the economy at what economists call "stall speed" and unable to achieve "escape velocity" (and the president's own Office of Management and Budget today projected unemployment of 9% or higher through 2012), we are looking at a long, cruel time ahead.



The real choice, then, is not between bold vs. modest next Thursday night. The real choice is between same 'ole, same 'ole vs. action. So far, the only good news is that we got a little of the silliness behind us.

NPower is power to the nonprofit

BY CHRISTOPHER GERGEN AND STEPHEN MARTIN

Driven by their urgent mission to provide affordable housing but saddled with many manual administrative tasks, executives at Habitat for Humanity of Charlotte paused several years ago to pose a critical question: Would stronger information technology make their organization stronger as a whole?



The nonprofit turned for help to NPower Charlotte Region, which conducted a comprehensive assessment of Habitat's current set-up and offered a clear answer to its question: Absolutely yes.



"That was a turning point for Habitat as an organization," recalls Meg Robertson, an associate director there. "We'd never really strategically looked at our technology needs. We'd never been intentional about it."





When it comes to technology, that scattershot approach placed Habitat among the vast majority of nonprofits. Often unable to fund IT staffs large enough to handle their needs, nonprofits string together whatever support they can find.



Sometimes it's a contractor who stops by once a month. Other times, it's one or two full-time IT specialists. That works well - until they try to take a vacation. The cost of scrimping on IT adds up, in the form of outdated processes, lost productivity and missed opportunities for organizations that, in these tight economic times, have little margin for error.



As a nonprofit IT consulting firm that serves fellow nonprofits exclusively, NPower Charlotte Region offers a welcome alternative. Part of a national network of eight firms that started in Seattle in 1999 and has been funded significantly by Microsoft, NPower launched in Charlotte in 2003. With a staff of about two-dozen full- and part-time employees, it has served more than 100 nonprofits of all sizes in the region.



Its work runs the gamut, from strategic consulting to managed services in which it acts as a full-service IT department for clients, as well as providing free technology seminars and private IT coaching sessions. Last year, NPower Charlotte's revenue reached $2 million - providing its services for about half the price of for-profit IT firms.



With a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to support shared technology solutions for nonprofits, NPower recently built a new volunteer management system for Habitat, Carolina Raptor Center in Huntersville and Classroom Central, which equips students with free school supplies.



The technology makes paperless approaches that previously were highly manual and fragmented. It provides a central database of all Habitat volunteers, the professional and civic organizations with which they're affiliated, and whether they are donors. Just as significantly, it allows volunteers to sign up for construction shifts virtually.



The impact is far-reaching. Previously, Robertson says, it was difficult to know which volunteers were also donors, complicating targeted fundraising outreach. Because Habitat didn't have complete information on the various affiliations of its donors, matching grant funds that reside in various corporations and civic groups were often overlooked.



Without a uniform sign-up process, it was also difficult to project how many volunteers would show up at a site. So Habitat struggled to assign the appropriate number of staffers to specific projects, creating considerable inefficiencies.



"This system is transformational in terms of improving our business processes," Robertson says.



And it's being shared with Habitat for Humanity International as a potential model for affiliates everywhere.



In the months ahead, Habitat will start measuring its impact more precisely. In the meantime, through the Foundation for the Carolinas' Catalyst Fund, NPower is also exploring options for shared technology services that would benefit eight other Habitat affiliates in the Charlotte region.



Jane McIntyre got to know Chris Meade, NPower's executive director, in the early 2000s as CEO of YWCA Central Carolinas, where she brought in NPower Charlotte to run its IT services. Now executive director of United Way of Central Carolinas, McIntyre hired NPower to handle all of its IT work as well. Together, they have mapped out a strategic IT plan and secured more than $200,000 worth of free software through a Microsoft grant, diverting the resulting savings toward much-needed hardware upgrades.



Earlier this year, the groups grew even closer when NPower moved its offices onto the third floor of United Way's building in uptown Charlotte. The three-year, $150,000 lease gives NPower the larger working area and events space it needed and moves it closer to many clients. The lease payments, meanwhile, help United Way plow more of its funds back into the community.



It's a fitting partnership, McIntyre says, between two organizations whose missions are to build the region's nonprofit capacity, while modeling the collaboration it takes to realize them.



About the Authors:Christopher Gergen is the founding executive director of Bull City Forward, a member of the faculty of the Hart Leadership Program at Duke University, and co-author of Life Entrepreneurs. Stephen Martin, a former business and education journalist, is a speechwriter at the nonprofit Center for Creative Leadership.







Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08/0...