V

How much do we love democracy?

My parents, Nicola and Antoinette Iacocca, belonged to that amazing wave of Italian immigration that helped transform America into the land of prosperity. As immigrants, my parents had a reverence for this country that you seldom see today. When my sister Delma and I were kids, Mom and Pop took us to visit the Statue of Liberty twice. We piled into Pop’s beat-up old Ford and drove from Allentown, Pennsylvania, to New York City—which took a long time in those days. I remember walking with my father up the 354 stairs to the crown, huffing and puffing a little, but excited about the adventure. Standing in the crown of the Statue of Liberty, Pop pointed down at the harbor and told me about the thrill of seeing America for the first time.

I’m ashamed to admit that when I became a father, I didn’t think to take my girls to see Lady Liberty. When we visited New York City, we were too busy going to Broadway shows, eating at great restaurants, and touring museums.

It’s a sad thing that complacency can set in so fast. As I look around me today, I see that our democracy has become a little worn, a little shabby. The rhetoric is still there, but the passion has wilted. Do we still love democracy? Do we have any idea what democracy really means?

How about a regime change right here in the United States? Instead of trying to establish democracy in countries that don’t want it, why not try to reestablish democracy where we’ve lost it?

Are you wondering, “Lee, what are you talking about? I have my SUPPORT THE TROOPS bumper sticker and my yellow-ribbon window decal. I have an American flag waving proudly from my car antenna. I love this country.”

And I’ll come right back at you with a very simple question: Did you vote in last fall’s election?

Democracy thrives on two factors: free elections and open discourse. How are we doing? Not so hot.

VOTING—A RIGHT OR A DUTY?

It drives me crazy that Americans don’t vote. We should be ashamed. It is plain hypocrisy for us to hold up our system of government as the best there is, yet fail to practice the most fundamental action of a free people—voting.

It’s embarrassing that the United States has one of the worst voting records in the free world. In the last presidential election, about 45 percent of those eligible cast a vote. Compare that to recent free elections in other countries:

Are you embarrassed yet?

I have to wonder how much difference it would make if voting was mandatory—like paying taxes. Now, before you get your hackles up and start hollering that mandatory elections would not be free, hear me out.

In some countries, voting is considered not just a right, but a duty of living in a democracy. The argument is that a government is more representative when a larger percentage of the population votes. About thirty countries have some form of mandatory voting, with various (usually mild) penalties for the slackers. In Belgium, if you don’t vote in at least four elections within a fifteen-year period, you get kicked off the voter rolls. In Greece, you may have a hard time getting a driver’s license or a passport if you don’t vote. In Singapore, you’re removed from the voter register and must reapply and give a good reason for not having voted. And in several countries, small fines are imposed.

These penalties are not exactly draconian, but they have one advantage: They remind people that freedom is not free.

What if the United States passed a law that you had to vote in order to be eligible for certain tax cuts? That would make people sit up and take notice! Instead of debating flag burning, maybe Congress could spend a day or two talking about that. At least it would have some relevance to the practice of democracy.

Unfortunately, we bend over backward in the opposite direction—making it harder, not easier, for people to vote.

Across the nation, there are many impediments to voting, including voter ID statutes, broken voting machines, and long lines at the polls. Low voter turnout means more empty rhetoric during election season. Everyone tries to appeal to the “base”—those people who are ideologically passionate about one side or the other, and will show up to vote no matter what.

I’ll bet that the people who would object the most vehemently to any form of mandatory voting would be our elected officials. The sad fact is that most of them don’t want more people to vote. They might have to show results for a change. They prefer the cozy, inbred system where 98 percent of all incumbents are reelected. It’s called a stacked deck.

When I’m at a dinner party and someone says, “I didn’t vote in the last election, but here’s what I think,” I tune them out quick. What if we all did that? Even if we didn’t make voting mandatory in the United States, maybe we could try to exert some socialpressure. For example:

· What if your child wouldn’t be eligible for that fancy preschool if you didn’t vote?

· What if your boss would be less inclined to give you a raise if you didn’t vote?

· What if people didn’t shop at your store if you didn’t vote?

· What if you couldn’t appear on American Idol if you didn’t vote?

· What if people snubbed you at barbecues or dinner parties if you didn’t vote?

Social pressure is a great motivator. We should try it.

DARE TO SPEAK OUT

Besides voting, the other cornerstone of democracy is open discourse and debate. But most politicians are downright squeamish about speaking out and rocking the boat. I hate to think of where we’d be if our Founding Fathers hadn’t slugged it out over what kind of a constitution we were going to have.

You might argue that the Democrats won the 2006 election because they spoke out against the war. But the Democrats only started speaking out when the polls showed them it was absolutely safe to do so. Where were they in 2005 or in 2004? Where were they before we got into this war? As I recall, there was only one man who took it on the chin and spoke out against the war before it was politically expedient. That man is John Murtha.

Let me tell you about John Murtha. He’s the Democratic congressman from Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and he also happens to be a good friend of mine. In 1966, John volunteered for service in Vietnam. As a captain in the Marine Corps he received the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. He ran for Congress in 1974 and has served there ever since. He’s what you’d call a true patriot. He’s also been a true friend to soldiers, and one of the most credible guys in Congress on matters of war. Every administration, Republican and Democrat, has listened to him on military matters. Until this administration.

Murtha voted to go to war in Iraq, but as the years passed he got pretty riled up about the disastrous course of the war, and he decided he couldn’t stay silent for another minute. Kids were dying and he decided he had to speak up and demand that we bring the troops home. He was one of the few to do so before it was politically “safe.”

How did the Bush administration respond? Karl Rove tried to “Swift-boat” Murtha. Swift-boating is the new term used to describe a dirty campaign that tries to paint a war hero as unpatriotic. It originated with another war hero, John Kerry. Running for President against the AWOL National Guardsman in Chief, George Bush, Kerry watched his Swift-boat heroism during the Vietnam War turned into something shameful and cowardly. It was probably the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen in politics—and that’s saying a lot. I was disgusted by it, and I tried to convince Kerry to fight back. “These guys are playing dirty,” I told him. “It’s time for you to aim a few blows below the belt, if that’s what it takes, or they’re going to run right over you.” He refused, and I think that’s why he lost the election. People started saying, “If he can’t stick up for himself, how can we expect him to stick up for us.”

These guys have put everyone on notice: “Criticize the war and we’ll ruin you.” They did it with Max Cleland, another war hero. Max is in a wheelchair. Do they think he’s faking it? They did it with Kerry. And they came after Murtha. Karl Rove could smear Mother Teresa—he’s that devious. When will we stand up and say, “Enough!”

I take it personally when our government tries to ruin a man who speaks his mind.

ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS

We pride ourselves on our two-party system. But the way it stands now, each of the two main political parties tries to gain all the power. They each want to create a one-party system, because it’s so much easier to rule when everyone’s on the same side. The Republicans mostly succeeded in having a one-party system during the first six years of Bush’s administration. They turned Congress into a big dissent-free zone. If you don’t believe me, just look at Bush’s record of vetoes. When Congress passes a law that the President disagrees with, he can veto it. Then if Congress can scrape together enough votes (two-thirds), it can override the veto. This process is called the separation of powers.

If the process is working, you expect to see a lot of vetoes in the course of a President’s term, although some Presidents have gotten carried away. They used to call Truman “Harry S. Veto.” He vetoed 250 bills during his presidency—but he didn’t even come close to FDR’s record of 635. Recent presidents have calmed down somewhat. Reagan vetoed 78 bills, Bush senior 44, and Clinton 37.

And the current President? One veto. Wait, you say, am I hearing right? Just one? That’s right. In six-plus years, George Bush disagreed with Congress exactly once. In case you don’t get the significance of that, let me spell it out: Under Bush, the executive and legislative branches of our government merged into one. Bush didn’t veto legislation because it was basically his legislation to begin with.

BRING BACK THE CONSTITUTION

We don’t have to fly by the seat of our pants. We have a blueprint. It’s called the United States Constitution. But we’ve got to stay vigilant, because when people get into power in Washington, they tend to work hard to get around constitutional provisions.

Bush did that with wiretapping. His attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, assured him that a “war President” didn’t have to abide by the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the citizens of the United States the right to privacy. They spied on us, and when people complained they said, “What do you have to hide?” That’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. Finally, a federal judge in Detroit named Anna Diggs Taylor called a halt to the illegal wiretapping, taking a jab at the imperial Bush presidency, declaring, “There are no hereditary kings in America.” I wonder if Bush was surprised to hear that.

When you stop and think about it, the Constitution is like the Bible. You don’t really have to read it every day to know what’s in it. You don’t have to memorize every word to know what it stands for.

The Constitution is a tool, and a blueprint, and a process that we have to use every day to preserve our great democracy. Its words were hammered out by pragmatists—a group of men who understood that democracy doesn’t happen because of starry-eyed idealism, but through a process of tedious negotiation and compromise.

And for 230 years it has worked. The real genius of the Constitution, it seems to me, is that it has retained its fundamental values while giving us the freedom to adapt to the times. You can read the Constitution all day long and you won’t find an answer to most of the big problems and questions we face today. There’s nothing in it to tell us how to handle terrorism, or the energy crisis, or health care, or stem cell research, or the drug war. But through the Constitution, we intrinsically understand who we are. We say, “This is what we stand for.” Its meaning should be imprinted on every heart. It should come to mind every time we vote.

PAUSE TO LISTEN…AND THINK

During the coming year, you will be asked to form an opinion about who should be our next President. In the process, you’ll be bombarded by media coverage on a minute-to-minute basis. All that coverage will not necessarily produce much valuable information. The media likes the horse-race aspect of campaigns—who’s up, who’s down, who flubs, who cries. But I hope with the world aflame, you’ll bypass the silly season and take your obligation seriously.

We have so much media these days, and it moves so fast, it’s easy to get left with impressions that aren’t accurate. You can miss the facts if you’re rapid-clicking your remote. I found this out the hard way a few years back when my name appeared in two stories that had nothing to do with me. I call it being screwed by juxtaposition.

The first story involved Heidi Fleiss, the infamous Hollywood madam. I was passing by the TV one day, and it was turned on to an interview with Heidi. She was describing the thousand-dollar fee that she’d charged for an evening with one of her girls.

The interviewer asked, “If a guy pays a thousand dollars for an evening, does he pick up the dinner tab, too?”

Heidi said, “Well, that depends. Let’s say, for example, it was Lee Iacocca…”

What? I never heard the rest of the sentence because my phone started ringing off the hook. For weeks after, people would sidle up to me and whisper, “Hey, I hear you’re in Heidi’s black book.” My denials fell on deaf ears. Heidi Fleiss had said my name, and that was good enough for them.

Then, a couple months later, it happened again. This was during the time when the FBI was trying to catch the Unabomber. You might remember that they had a sketch of a suspect wearing a hooded sweatshirt, large sunglasses, and a mustache. One day, I was watching the news and an FBI specialist was demonstrating to a reporter how easy it is to change one’s identity. He took the Unabomber sketch and removed the hooded sweatshirt. Then he erased the mustache. And finally he took off the sunglasses.

“Hey,” the TV reporter exclaimed, “that’s Lee Iacocca!”

Once again, my phone started ringing off the hook. “Lee, someone said you were involved with the Unabomber…”

I was glad about one thing—I wasn’t running for political office. I assure you, had I been a candidate, I would have spent 90 percent of my time either explaining what I was doing in Heidi Fleiss’s black book, or trying to prove I wasn’t the Unabomber.

So I caution you to avoid jumping to conclusions or basing your vote on quick impressions. Chances are, they’ll be wrong.

HOW TO PICK A LEADER

The goal is to vote for a leader. How can you tell if a candidate is the kind of leader we need? Here’s a good place to start. Give him or her my Nine Cs test. That’ll tell you right away if the person should even be in the running.

I’ve already started applying the Nine Cs to the current crop of potential candidates, and as I look at some of the early front-runners, I’ve started to form an opinion. Mind you, this is my opinion. You may see it differently. But the point is, you have to read, listen, and educate yourself. Think it through on your own. Do some digging.

I’m not going to try to handicap the election. I’ve never been that good at the track. But I thought you might find it helpful to see how I’ve applied the Nine Cs to some of these folks.

John McCain has shown COURAGE and CHARACTER in the worst CRISIS imaginable—being a prisoner of war. I think we’ve been so disappointed in our leaders that we have a hunger for people we can look up to for their strength and heroism, and that is why McCain holds a special place in many people’s hearts. But politically he has changed his position so many times, you have to ask if he really has political CONVICTION. He has a habit of being both for and against an issue, depending on the audience (example: abortion). While he shows a willingness to compromise, which is a good thing, his compromises can feel like caving in (examples: campaign finance reform and the torture act). The media needs to push McCain on his contradictory stands and help us get a real idea of what he would do in office.

In the Senate, McCain has demonstrated that he can work across party lines, and we could really use a President who can unite the parties. However, I was a little disturbed to learn that he’s hired Terry Nelson to be his campaign manager. Nelson is known for below-the-belt politics. He was responsible for the famous “bimbo” ad that defeated Harold Ford, Jr., in the 2006 Tennessee Senate race. What does it say about John McCain that he’s willing to make that kind of person the head of his team? I think we should ask him.

Rudy Giuliani earned the title “America’s mayor” for showing remarkable cool and COURAGE under pressure during the CRISIS of 9/11. You can’t take that away from him. But as I’ve watched the clamor building for his candidacy, I’ve noticed that people seem to be in love with the image, and aren’t so interested in looking at Rudy’s record before 9/11. Who is Rudy Giuliani? He wasn’t born on 9/11. I’ve known Rudy personally for many years, and he can be rigid and punitive in his governing style. Many New Yorkers feel he was a divisive mayor. In fact, Rudy’s popularity rating on September 11 was pretty low. While mayor of New York City, Rudy had a “my way or the highway” attitude that kind of reminds me of George W. Bush—which is alarming. And he isn’t known for his COMMUNICATION skills. (Perhaps the best example of poor communication skills is that he announced at a press conference he was leaving his wife—before he told her.) And what about COMPETENCE? It was Rudy Giuliani who insisted, against all advice, to locate New York City’s crisis coordination center at the World Trade Center, in spite of the 1993 bombing. That decision may have contributed to the chaos on 9/11.

What kind of team would Rudy put together? His associations raise some issues about his CHARACTER. Some of them have corruption problems. Former police commissioner Bernie Kerik is the most famous. I hope the media asks Rudy to account for some of his actions and associations while mayor—before 9/11.

Mitt Romney: I think of Romney as a local boy—and he was just a boy when I knew his parents, George and Lenore. They were very close neighbors of ours in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. George Romney, as you may recall, was president of American Motors and served as governor of Michigan during some critical periods. I always admired the guy. He was a smart businessman (he coined the term “gas guzzler”), and like most Mormons I’ve known, he believed in giving something back to the community through public service. So, what do I think of George’s son? Like his father, Mitt Romney spent two years as a missionary before he started his career. That says something about his CHARACTER. He’s proved himself to be a talented businessman, and while he didn’t set the world on fire as a one-term governor of Massachusetts, he was COMPETENT. I’d say Romney’s biggest challenge is to have the COURAGE of his CONVICTIONS. He’s always been a political moderate, but that doesn’t play too well with the Republican base.

Hillary Clinton is a smart woman, and even her detractors acknowledge that she has shown COMMON SENSE and COMPETENCE in the Senate. I have no doubt that we’re ready to have a woman President. But is Hillary the one? There is always a question mark about CHARACTER and CONVICTION hanging over her head. She’s a bit too slick and politically expedient, and her movement to the center leaves her without a strong political identity. Her style of COMMUNICATION is always very careful, as if she’s weighing the pros and cons of each word she utters. People often ask, “What does Hillary believe in?” I don’t think that question has been answered.

Hillary has a huge team of advisors, with a core of loyalists that have been with her for ten to fifteen years. Her number one teammate is Bill Clinton, and maybe that’s Hillary’s biggest problem. Is America ready for the weird scenario of having the Clintons back in the White House in a reversal of roles? I try to be open-minded, but that’s a lot to get your head around. Would a Hillary Clinton presidency distract from the focus on the important issues we have to face? The media needs to press Hillary on why she wants to be President, and why she thinks she’s the best person for the job.

Joe Biden is a career public servant. I’ve known Joe for many years, and I like the guy. He has many of the qualities that make a leader. He is COMPETENT, CREATIVE, and CURIOUS. He has COMMON SENSE. Not much CHARISMA, though. A lot of people think Biden is too plodding, but in my opinion this is a bum rap. And maybe what we really need this time around is someone who knows what he or she is doing. I’ve seen Joe inspire small groups of people with his simple command of facts and his logic. He’s not afraid to tell people what he thinks. There’s some great experience in that man—much of it in foreign affairs—if we’re willing to take advantage of it.

Joe’s biggest challenge is that despite a long career in the Senate, he’s not that well known across the country. If he wants to convince us he’s ready to lead the nation, he’ll have to get outside his cozy insider’s world and COMMUNICATE his plan in a way that makes people pay attention.

Barack Obama is one of those stars who seem to come from nowhere to capture the imagination of the nation. What’s not to like about this guy? He has CHARISMA and CONVICTION, and obviously he has strong COMMUNICATION skills. In my opinion, his race isn’t an issue. We’re as ready to elect a black man as we are to elect a woman. But is Obama the one? Is he COMPETENT to be President? He lacks experience in national government, and the media needs to push him on how he would lead—especially in foreign affairs. However, lack of experience isn’t always an insurmountable barrier. Look at the mess George Bush’s experienced team of Cheney and Rumsfeld made of things. But Obama is going to have to get very specific about what he would do and who would be on his team, in order for us to have enough confidence in him.

John Edwards is a very appealing guy, and I think he’s shown CHARACTER in his choice of issues. Let’s face it: Standing up for the poor isn’t the best way to raise money for your candidacy. Right now, Edwards is the only real populist in the race. He can COMMUNICATE, and has some star power, which can also make him look a bit slick. He’s had plenty of CRISIS in his life—the death of a child, and a wife with breast cancer—and his response has been inspirational. But is he COMPETENT to be President? Edwards was only in the Senate for one term before dropping out to run with Kerry.

One of the best things about John Edwards is his wife Elizabeth. She’s his closest advisor, and pretty much everyone agrees that she’s fantastic. His campaign manager is former congressman David Bonior from Michigan, who is a strong labor loyalist. I guess this shows where Edwards stands on domestic policy. Now let’s ask questions about his foreign policy plan.

Bill Richardson: I met Bill Richardson a couple of times when we were promoting NAFTA. He’s very smart, and he has a keen understanding of foreign relations—which is extremely important for a presidential candidate today. I’d say Richardson’s greatest strength is that he’s a strong COMMUNICATOR. He has the mind and heart of a negotiator, and I’m struck by how respectful he is of other nations—friends and foes alike. He also has an easygoing COMMON SENSE that is comforting in an age when ideologues rule the roost. And don’t forget, Richardson is extremely experienced, with proven COMPETENCE. He has worn many hats in government: He served in Congress, he was a cabinet member and an ambassador under Clinton, and he’s now governor of New Mexico. His biggest challenge will be getting his message out in a crowded field.

Others will come and go in the next year. Some of these front-runners will fade, and some will grow stronger. But here’s the key: Whatever the lineup, it is our obligation to look beyond appearances and sound bites, and do the hard work of choosing a leader. We can’t afford to get it wrong this time.

Here’s another caution. Recently, I saw a poll showing that 30 percent of Americans think “the time is right” for a business leader in the White House. Every couple of election cycles, people decide they’re tired of politicians and they look to the business world. That’s not necessarily such a bad thing. But you’ve got to realize that a business is not a democracy, so business leaders can get pretty frustrated with the immense bureaucracy and its glacial pace. And if you’re a CEO, you don’t have to worry too much about being politically correct.

Back in 1987, a lot of people were urging me to run for president in 1988. Committees were formed, money was raised, bumper stickers were produced (I LIKE I). I took it seriously. I went to visit my friend Tip O’Neill in Cape Cod to ask for his advice.

“Tip,” I said, “they want me to run for president.”

He laughed. “President of what?”

Tip set me straight. He said, “You’re used to running a big corporation. When you make a decision in the morning, you either earn a profit that day or you don’t. You can’t run a government that way. It would drive you crazy. You wouldn’t last a year. You’d have a heart attack because of the frustration. And if you did manage to live through the first year, you’d probably be assassinated in the second year because you’d push the envelope too far.”

I said, “Thanks for the tip, Tip.” I gave back the money and bowed out.

The point is, you can be a success in business and not have the temperament to be president. For myself, I concluded long ago that to run for President you’ve got to be overambitious or just plain crazy.

American democracy is a wonderful thing. Because no matter what they tell you, the American people, vote by vote, can create whatever we want to create. It’s all in our hands. But we have to stay alert and keep ourselves informed. Democracy isn’t a spectator sport.

Mark your calendar for November 11, 2008, and plan to vote. Casting your vote is an act of leadership, because you’re making a choice that will decide the future of this country. Step up to the booth. Take on the challenge. Anyone can be a leader, including you.