TigerHawk

One of the perks of being in in the investment business is that you sometimes get to meet smart and interesting people who are really tuned into world developments. In the last 2 weeks, I was fortunate enough to see both David Gergen and former President Clinton speak at conferences as well as meet in smaller forums to discuss both domestic and world events.

Gergen Takeaways

Gergen has been an advisor to 4 presidents: Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. Because he crossed party lines to serve, and because many of his policy views seem to align nicely with mine, I found him to be unusually interesting and non-partisan.

On Nixon

A great strategist - the first to understand completely China's importance and the need to split the USSR and China. Nixon was brilliant; a reader; intellectually curious. Nixon was burdened by an extremely dark side to his personality which ultimately doomed his presidency and his legacy. While Gergen argues that Mark Felt was no hero, he forcefully argues that Judge John Sirica was the hero of Watergate, and that Nixon deserved what he got.

On Reagan

The greatest presidential leader since FDR. Intellect was seriously underestimated and underappreciated -- also a voracious reader with great intellectual curiosity. Gergen distinguishes between three phases in the Reagan Presidency -- in Phase 1, he was surrounded by excellent people and the White House was very well managed by Michael Deaver and James Baker, among others. In the second phase, White House management fell apart -- he seemed to be especially critical of Nick Brady in this regard -- and this period tainted his presidency with Iran Contra. In the third phase, proper White House management was restored, though Reagan's energy level had declined somewhat. Still, this third phase did help create the proper luster for his overall presidency.

On Clinton

A brilliant tactician; a policy wonk; a master of facts; obviously a tremendous intellect with, again, great curiosity. This seems to be a trait which Gergen values highly, by the way.

Gergen would argue Clinton was not a great leader, however, and that his White House was very poorly managed and disorganized. Whereas he thought the First Reagan White House represented the pinnacle of effective management, he referred to Clinton's White House Management as akin to "Daycare."

It is clear that Gergen has profound respect for all these great historical characters, but his admiration is tempered by the realism which comes from seeing them all up close. While he does not reveal embarrassing ancedotes, he does make clear where he thinks there were significant drawbacks to each of the parties.

Gergen also mentioned that there are Reagan Presidential Diaries which will shortly be published which he advised we should all read, as they will shed greater light on his intellect.

On W.

Again, he said W. is simply underrated intellectually in much the same way Reagan was. His critique of W. is very simple - as compared to all the others, he lacks the intellectual curiosity Gergen values so highly. He said W. is a great reader and risktaker, and may be treated well by history if Iraq works out and turns out to be the launching pad for Middle Eastern modernization. But Gergen is surprised by how little interest W. has in travel, for instance, and topics which seemed to fascinate the others.

He had little else to say on W. He seems to disagree with W. on many social issues, but agree with him mostly on foreign policy.

On Religion

In some ways, this was Gergen's most interesting moment. He was asked about his views on the perceived rising influence of religion in politics. His answer was lengthy and meandering, and after several glasses of wine and a large meal, people were really tired. Still, this was interesting and I believe will matter enormously, like it or not.

He responded by polling the audience (of 45) to ask who had heard of Rick Warren, the author of A Purpose Driven Life. Only 2 people knew who Warren was, though most had heard of the book because of the Atlanta spree killer who ultimately surrendered in part as a result of his being read portions of the book by his last hostage.

This poll made his point. You haven't heard of this guy, he told the (mostly coastal and European) audience, and yet his book is outselling every other book in America, including the Bible. I think he said it had sold 23mm copies or something. He then said the country is in the midst of a religious "Reawakening," which he observed has happened every 75-100 years in the US. New York, Boston and Los Angeles have more in common with secularized European cities than the US. However, most US towns and cities are profoundly religious and communitarian, and national politicians who miss this "reawakening" are doomed.


Clinton Takeaways

Now this guy can talk all night. There are no facts to which he can't speak. And he is clearly preparing the ground for Hillary's run. He even made a crack about enjoying the opportunity to be introduced as "the next first lady," as the next stage, reflecting being old, is to introduced only as Chelsea's dad.

He was basically complimentary of everybody, which frankly was quite nice. He likes the Bushes (father and son). The only Bush policy about which he chose to be emphatically critical was the tax cuts - his criticism was not strategic, it was tactical. His argument was that tax cuts made sense in the context of the recession, but they should have been temporary (2 years) and targetted to middle class versus "the rich." This, he said, was "shameful." You can hear him testing lines for his wife.

He was extremely complimentary of Bush as a politician, saying compassionate conservatism was a good tag line for "agreeing with all my (Clinton's) policies." This is a precursor for what Hillary will clearly do in her move to the middle. She will coopt many of W.'s policies on foreign policy, security and the like, with certain left of W. tweaks to social and tax policy.

He was also complimentary of Kerry, saying his campaign was underrated. However, he said Bush ultimately won because a) no wartime president has ever lost and b) Kerry's articulation of his security policy was ineffective. That, he said, has to be the Democratic Party's number 1 priority for its next Presidential candidate -- a cogent Security Policy. This, he said, is the President's most important function - and basically he said Bush has done a good job on it. He argues that Homeland Security money isn't well spent, but that seemed a minor criticism (he focused on screening 20% of incoming barge traffic, rather than 5%).

He made another interesting point about political campaigning which reflects his toughness and thick skin (which I think W. has, but both Kerry and Bush the father lacked). He said as a politician, you have to go into places where you know you are not liked, and will not win. He said Kerry did not do this enough -- so in certain parts of Ohio, for instance, Kerry lost 7 to 3, where Clinton only lost 6 to 4. He said this made all the difference. Reducing the margin of loss in unpopular places would have made a profound difference -- here is where Hillary will put on some southern, religious charm, and go to church I bet. This is how she will try to mitigate the effects of Gergen's "Reawakening." He said "people won't vote for you if you don't talk to them." Both Clinton and W. get this.



Away from the podium, Clinton is really fantastic (and I never voted for him, nor would I, so give me some slack here). His detailed knowledge and remembrance of negotiations with Rabin, Arafat and Barak; his exposition on the failure of the last talks, is extraordinarily impressive. His take on the failure of thise talks is multifaceted:

1) Rabin's absence due to his assassination was a big problem. Arafat respected him, and believed he could deliver politically.
2) Arafat was not the same man in 1999-2000 that he was in 1992-1993. He could not focus for more than 4 hours.
3) Barak was politically unpopular in Israel, a source of great concern for Arafat. Apparently, Arafat was concerned about agreeing to something which Barak ultimately couldn't deliver politically. His positions would then be exposed, all cards played, for no gain.
4) the end of Clinton's Presidency was looming, which meant transition risk in the US.

Not surprisingly, Clinton's ego fills the room and these problems are, in some respect, all about his perspective, not the others. But he has a point. He kept saying his 70%+ popularity ratings would give him the political credibility to force the deal, and that Arafat could feel secure in that, regardless of Barak's standing. The younger PA generation (Dahlan) would have/wanted to agree to Clinton's deal. And Clinton thought it was done. But "something happened" which Clinton couldn't explain which scuttled talks -- and of course we know the sad outcome. He said this has actually hurt Dahlan politically since, whereas Abbas didn't compromise himself then. This is why he seems to be optimistic; though I think this is simply his nature -- he is an optimistic guy.

There's plenty about Clinton not to admire or with which to agree. But he is really smart, very impressive, and great at a cocktail party.