Zogby's Global Village

By John Zogby

Just got back from a week in Honolulu and don’t you dare say a word. I was WORKING. I gave two speeches and met with political leaders of both parties.

Sorry for the defensiveness. And yes, the beaches were very nice. But (my wife) Kathy and I rented a car and had the opportunity to drive around the entire Big Island and see a lot of Hawaii. What we found was very disturbing. On the western shore from north to south, we saw thousands of tents and huts where people were living. Many are also living in their vehicles, some their own, some abandoned by someone. When I mentioned this to a few political folks they told me that they had heard about this but that they themselves seldom get to that part of the island. So this destitution, within only miles of the great city of Honolulu, is largely invisible to the public at large.

There are problems in layers in our 50th state. Many of the faces of the homeless are native Hawaiian and that in itself suggests a problem with race in a state that in many ways is a multicultural model for America’s future. Natives are almost a fifth of the population (but less than 10% of the voters, hence adding to their lack of visibility). Some leaders have tried to come to terms with this human problem. One has been offered by Senator Daniel Akaka and supported by his Senate colleague Daniel Inouye and other elected officials of both parties. This bill would grant status to native Hawaiians similar to the relationship granted to Native American tribes on the mainland. With this special status would come benefits in the form of increased spending for education and health care, along with separate government institutions. The sentiments behind the bill appear to be noble, but the bill (which has passed both houses of Congress in the past, but vetoed by President Bush) would seem to create a myriad of problems. First, it would be a federal unfunded mandate whose costs would be picked up by significant increases in taxes to Hawaiian taxpayers. Second, as a result, it could create an enormous amount of resentment toward native Hawaiians, who just don’t need the hostility. And third, it could very well split the native community between many natives who have succeeded and those who have not – creating a sense of status anxiety among the former.

The problem is that no one has presented an alternative. Some groups are calling for public hearings, which so far Congress has rejected. While not a solution to the problem, this is the kind of issue that needs a thorough vetting and can offer an engaged public to try out perhaps better models that provide a fairer solution to all parties. I found that there is concern among Hawaii residents and a desire to not sweep this under the carpet. But my polling suggests that the Akaka Bill is not the best answer.

John Zogby’s review of “Only the Super-Rich Can Save us!”

Full disclosure: Ralph Nader is a good friend. Please don’t mistake that for any pretention because Ralph is truly everyone’s good friend; even to those who don’t realize it. He should have been the automaker’s good friend. So too with the bankers, the insurance companies, the airlines, the unions, to a lot of people who were ultimately done in either by their own myopia or by venal people in their midst. Ralph is one of the giants of American history and will always have his place among the great.

His book is a wonderful odyssey into the near future and it is an enjoyable one. First of all, Ralph has already shown that he can write more than a legal brief. Anyone who has read his “The Seventeen Traditions” can attest to the beauty of his prose and to the deeper values that he represents. Second, he reveals more of himself in this new book than simply the uncompromising crusader he has been all his life (and all of our lives, as well). We now see him as Saul Alinsky with a vision for a better world. Alinsky was the pre-eminent community organizer of his day and actually founded a school for local activists, which taught skills like how to get people to a meeting, anger the opposition enough to get them to respond, and how handle the press. There is a lot of Alinsky in Ralph.

But there is also a lot of Edward Bellamy in “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us”. Bellamy was perhaps the first among equals of utopians writing in the late 19th century who lifted his readers out of the horrors of the industrial revolution toward a vision of a better future.

So we now see a 21st Century Ralph Nader: a Saul Alinsky with a vision of a better world and an Edward Bellamy armed with superior legal talent and plenty of street political savvy.

I just love it. This is the kind of guy who can cut through the bloviation and tell us, in the great words of Larry the Cable Guy, how to “get ‘er done”.

In a world of chaos, we need to anticipate what comes next. Whatever it will be, it will come from the citizenry who are giving up on many of the old institutions and rules that govern them. Ralph’s book is a realistic utopia and can be enabled by those who have the resources to move it along. None of the proposed actions and results are pie-in-the-sky. They are very real. And he has an uncanny knack for understanding the motives of the super-rich and others. His knowledge of popular culture is impressive for someone who has been perceived as primarily focused on economic and political issues.

Here is the final test for a book like this: Can anyone really deny that Ralph Nader’s world, as described in “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us”, would be decidedly better than where we are now?

“No,” said the billionaire who has made too much money and must now take on the challenge of building a better world.

“No,” said the business person paying too much in taxes and receiving very little (if any) payback.

“No,” said the union organizer trying to still be relevant in a changing world.

“No,” said the entrepreneur who needs to be surrounded with creative ideas.

“No,” said the tea-partier who is fighting against everything but is not quite sure what he or she is for.

“No,” said the pollster who just loved this book.

I am going to give this book as a gift throughout 2010.

By John Zogby

I visited Prague again to participate in a panel for the annual Forum 2000, founded and presided over by Vaclav Havel, icon of the Velvet Revolution and former president of the Czech Republic. The panel was entitled “Shifting Values in Capitalism” and my fellow panelists included Pepper de Callier (Chairman of the Czech-based Bubenik Partners, a leading management and head-hunting consultant firm), Muriel Anton (CEO, Vodafone Czech Republic), Klara Starkova (Executive Committee Member and Head of Polish Operations for Generali PPF Holding), and Sir Frank Lampl (Life President of Bovis Lend Lease in the UK).

Is this Great Recession just another bust in a regular boom-bust cycle? Or is it transformational, involving changes in how consumers think and behave, and how businesses must respond? For me, the latter is true. We are in the midst of a period, as economist Joseph Schumpeter would describe it, of “creative destruction”. And it is more than very bad behavior on Wall Street and in the boardrooms – though that was venal and criminal. Capitalism has been transforming itself since 1973, the official end of the post-World War II boom. In many ways, this economic system has been the victim of its own success. It has created a solid middle class in the developed world and a growing one in the developing world. Translated that means hundreds of millions of humans who are somewhat satisfied with what they have, who are going to be particularly discerning on what they need, and who don’t have to spend a majority of their daily lives in the pursuit of food. This means a planet populated by large numbers of people who are able to move from a preoccupation with satisfying physiological needs and to move on to a greater focus on self-actualization. For those, especially Americans, who have experienced middle class living for generations, along with an education and homeownership, a transformation to secular spiritualism has been underway for over a decade – well before this recession. As I have noted many times, some are working for less money and need to readjust, others find that all they have has not produced real satisfaction.

For the newer middle classes, just beginning to taste the fruits of economic security, there is a demand for consumer goods, but hardly the tendency to waste their own (and world’s) scarce resources. The wise businesses are those who are recognizing that there is a new and more discerning consumer. Three years ago, when I spoke to business associations and individual companies, the subject of sustainability hardly ever came up. Today it is the subject of annual conferences and numerous panel discussions. Corporations have rewritten strategic plans to incorporate conservation and green technologies. And the phenomenon of socially responsible investing and corporate social responsibility has grown to trillions. What has also grown are the sheer numbers of employees, executives, and citizens who promote these changes. 

Interestingly, one message came out loud and clear in Prague. New business models for success are replacing old, wasteful, self-centered, top-down models i.e. American auto companies.

By John Zogby

Would you believe that Kathy (my wife) and I were fortunate to be in Santa Fe on the 400th Anniversary of the city’s founding? We vote on the world’s most beautiful places and for Kathy, Santa Fe just bumped a few other places for the top stop. This is a wonderful city and at 7,000 feet above sea level, the air is just right for me.

I spoke to the Council of State Governments – West; I have spoken at perhaps 20 CSG events since the nineties and they are always a delight. The CSG-West is comprised of legislators in the 13 western states, including both political parties, and they gather to collaborate, share ideas, and listen to speeches about politics, policy, and effective communications. Another perfect opportunity for me to discuss the themes of my book (The Way We’ll Be) and I found them particularly interested in both “secular spiritualism” (they’d say, “that describes what is happening to me”) and First Global™ Citizens (“you have captured the essence of my kids”).

But what really pleased me is that I had a chance to discuss a recent poll I did with my friend, Dr. Ward Casscells, about what would make Americans support healthcare reform. As we have reported on other pages if this website, support moves to a majority when reform legislation includes both tort reform (a tilt to the right) and a public option (a pivot to the left). What a unique idea! Let the public be the adult in the room and come up with a package that works best for them. And forgive the public if they do not have a pat ideological agenda. Just a sense of what works for them.

There are always a lot of opposing opinions when state legislators gather in a room. But I got a strong sense in conversations after my speech, at receptions that followed, and in conversations in other informal settings that even the legislators are growing tired of the bickering and the tone of what they experience in their own capitals.

As I wrote in my book: “in three decades of polling, I’ve found that while individuals make mistakes in judgment, America as a whole rarely does. A collective wisdom emerges from a poll or vote that is far greater than the sum of its parts.”

It worked again in the healthcare debate. That quote, incidentally, is on Cup #235, issued by Starbucks.

By John Zogby

If you have been following my odyssey you see that I get to go to a lot of different places. I was just in Hazleton, PA over the summer at a great family reunion. My mother was born in nearby Shenandoah and lived in Hazleton for a decade. We visited the city as a family a few times a year for many years so it was really a second home. It is nice place defined by faith, family, and ethnicity. Rare is the surname that is not Irish, Slovak, Italian, Jewish — you get the picture. And there is the legendary Jimmy’s Hot Dogs, which in itself is worth pulling off of Route 81.

This is the heart of the anthracite coal region. Years ago, the major film about the Molly Maguires — the 19th century Irish-American coal miners who used violence to protest their abysmal conditions — was filmed nearby. Sean Connery came to town. Hazleton was devastated when the mines closed but in the late 1950s and early 1960s a combination of business and civic leaders put together a community wide campaign to save the local economy. The Can-Do Campaign built a series of industrial parks and put residents back to work. A Penn State campus was built and expanded. Hazleton was cited as an All-American City.

Zogby International was hired to do a visioning study by Leadership Hazleton, the Can-Do organization, and the chamber of commerce in 1998. I did much of it myself because I wanted to catch up on the dynamics of my “home town”. I found a community that was suffering from all the stresses of small cities on the edge of an increasingly global economy. It was a successful project and we were able to help in a number of ways – most notably in the creation of community scholarships to college to local graduates who promised to stay in Hazleton for a number of years. In return there was a promise from local leaders that decent jobs would await them.

We were asked back in 2006 and 2007 to conduct a study that looked into the present and future demographics of the city and determine what institutional and agency changes might be required to address future demographic needs. Back when I was a kid, Hazleton was nearly all white and ethnic. By 1998, this city which once boasted a population of 40,000 had declined (as many northeastern cities had) to about 20,000 – but the total population had begun to increase due to the migration of Hispanics. By 2006, the Hispanic population grew to approximately 7,500 or more people. And herein lies the rub. With any dramatic population growth comes social problems – notably crime, especially violent crime, schools bursting at the seams, language and cultural misunderstandings, and so on. This is precisely what happened and necessitated our addressing this great and tumultuous change in our final report.

I was concerned that the local mayor, who had been re-elected with about 90% of the vote and had become a fixture on cable television as an anti-illegal immigration public official, was allowing the legitimate discussion of community growth and potential to be distorted. And I was further troubled to read in the local newspaper and in national publications that the mayor’s unconstitutional efforts to prohibit employers to hire and landlords to rent to illegal aliens was causing an exodus of Hispanics from this fine city. Someone who considers Hazleton a second home had to be bothered by the headline of a New York Times editorial that read “Hazleton vs. Humanity”. To see legitimate businesses owned by Hispanics shuttering and Hispanics moving out was a bad move – and certainly counter-productive to our study and to the work of the broad committee of leaders charged with coming up with solutions for the future.

Herein comes the controversy: in a personal executive summary to our study, I said that “the mayor…needs to be challenged” because his efforts were not helpful to Hazleton’s image nationally and to the long range work that needed to be done. I also said that a program that seeks to “oppose the sort of prejudice and oppression demonstrated by the local ordinances now in place in Hazleton” needed to be established and I offered a myriad of suggestions. The mayor took my account as a “personal attack” and some community argued that I was accusing the mayor and the public of racism. Since I am not in the habit of arguing or debating with clients I left this alone. Now two full years have passed and here is what I think:

1. No personal attack against the mayor of Hazleton. They elected him and I don’t know him. But his efforts were not helpful.
2. I met with approximately 150 community residents when I was there in October 2007 and they were receptive to getting to know their Hispanic neighbors better; so too were the Hispanics present.

I understand that there are now some efforts to heal these problems. I truly hope so.

By John Zogby

Yes, I do get to go to nice places.

I was honored recently to serve as one of three keynote speakers at Hawaii’s New Horizons for the Next 50 Years conference sponsored by the 50th Anniversary of Statehood Commission. My job was to examine the future of the U.S., take a look at how Americans view Hawaii, and share my analysis of how residents of our 50th state see their own present and future.

First, and not surprisingly, 77% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Hawaii. Actually, we measured views of other states and none came even close. When asked, “what’s the first thing that comes to mind” to describe Hawaii, respondents said, “paradise”, beauty”, and sunshine”. But enough did cite “expensive”.

During the daylong conference there was a very high profile demonstration against statehood. This brought together an interesting and spirited coalition of natives (who feel that their identity, culture, and livelihood have been hurt) anti-taxers, and green anti-growth activists. But according to our survey, 64% of Hawaii residents said that they felt statehood was positive for Hawaii. Only 13% said it was negative and the remainder said neither or not sure.

One of the most intriguing findings for me was that 42% of Hawaii residents said that in 20 years from now, in terms of demographics, Hawaii will look like the nation as a whole instead of the rest of the U.S. looking more like Hawaii. Our 50th state has always been our most diverse and the evidence suggests that as many mainland residents move to Hawaii (where non-native born residents represent almost half of the state), many states, and the nation as a whole, are achieving higher levels of non-white populations.

One in four residents of Hawaii feels that their votes don’t matter and that the mainland doesn’t even care what they think. But this is the state that suffered the worst attack on American soil and in just 50 years statehood has given us a President.

By John Zogby

Isn’t this a fascinating question? It is one thing to recognize that President Barack Obama has captured the imagination of people all over the world. It is an essential ingredient in the power and influence he holds. In the final analysis, constituents love it when their chosen leader is seen as larger than his or her own base.

But this was different. This was both a wistfulness and wishfulness I heard among Italians of all ages. Italy has had a troubled government since almost the beginning of its national unity. Governments changed hands with alacrity and the old party alignments barely produced majorities before they fell. Today’s party consolidation is such that coalitions are broader and majorities more possible, but there is a crisis in confidence that transcends the normal dysfunction of Italian politics. Italians clearly do not favor left-leaning Democrats because socialism is expensive and not growth-oriented. But current right-of-center President Silvio Berlusconi is seen as hopelessly corrupt in both his public and private lives and is referred to by all sides as a national embarrassment.

So when I kept hearing the question raised above in the title of this post, I had to think back to the conditions that led to the election of President Obama in the U.S. The U.S. government, political system, financial institutions, corporate leadership, and church officials were facing the greatest crisis in confidence since 1932. In the election of 2008 all of these were to a great degree on trial. Conventional wisdom argued for the junior Senator from Illinois to wait his turn.  As it turned out, in post-Katrina U.S., Americans felt the existing models of operation were no advantage at all. Add to the mix great demographic change in the form of young people, including Hispanics, African Americans, and a creative class ,who were all demanding change and, in retrospect, the Obama victory now seems inevitable.

As for Italy, there is no question that its scandal-ridden and ineffectual government and political system are in deep trouble. It remains to be seen if one young, dynamic, visionary, consensus, third-way leader can emerge. It is arguable whether or not Italy’s young people can be energized the same way their American counterparts were in 2008.

By John Zogby

The U.S. has the most developed network of First Global™ citizens of any country on the planet, but Europe is not far behind. With two generations of easy border crossings, a network of universities, an efficient and inexpensive train and air travel system, the European citizenry has matured. We hear about immigration to London, Paris, Rome, and Amsterdam, and other cities, but the downside is these cities are having a terrible problem with assimilation, or the lack thereof, if not actual two-way hostilities. On the upside, Europe is again a crossroads of East and West, immigration will continue, students from all over the world will spend time, money, and energy in Europe’s great cities and global citizenry will progress unabated.

But in Italy we discussed a different kind of problem. It appears that Italy – once at the epicenter of East and West – is behind the curve in developing its global citizenry. Though there are huge universities like Rome’s 150,000-student La Sapienza and small influential business universities like LUISS Guido Carli (actually formed by Italy’s leading industrialists), not enough Italians are attending college and too many are instead opting to spend more and more time at home with their parents. These “bambicinos” are staying home well into their thirties. And their parents and community leaders are worried for more reasons than one.

Only 8% of Italians have college degrees (compared with over one-third in the U.S.), and Italian leaders and parents should be worried about the future of Italy’s workforce, the health of its great industries, and its citizenry’s knowledge of government and links with the outside world.