David Gergen, trusted Washington stalwart who advised 4 presidents, dead at 83
He was 83.
Advertisement
Gergen died in a retirement home in Massachusetts on July 10, his son said, according to several outlets.
The Washington, D.C., veteran had been suffering from Lewy body dementia, his son said.
Those who knew and admired Gergen took to X to express their condolences.
Former California first lady Maria Shriver wrote on X: 'David Gergen was total professional and a really kind man. My thoughts are with his family. He loved politics and he loved being in service to this country.'
Advertisement
'RIP, Mr. Gergen,' CBS reporter Robert Costa wrote.
Former Democratic Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. wrote: 'We lost a good one, a really good one – RIP, my friend David Gergen.'
Gergen came up with the line that then-candidate Reagan said in the 1980 election: 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?' according to The New York Times.
3 Longtime political TV analyst and academic David Gergen died July 10 at a retirement home in Massachusetts at the age of 83.
Larry French
Advertisement
3 Before getting involved as a political TV pundit, Gergen worked with four former Presidents: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.
AFP via Getty Images
He later said of the line: 'Rhetorical questions have great power.'
Of his time with the Nixon administration, Gergen told the Washington Post in 1981, 'I was young, and I was too naive. It hardened me up a lot. It was an extremely difficult experience emotionally, in terms of belief in people.'
After leaving public office, Gergen worked as an editor and columnist, as well as for the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the liberal Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Advertisement
3 Gergen's son said the Washington, D.C., veteran had been suffering from Lewy body dementia.
Getty Images
He was also a commentator for PBS, CNN and NPR.
'To say that I rely on him is an understatement,' Reagan's White House Chief of Staff, James A. Baker III, told The Washington Post in 1981.
'He's the best conceptualizer, in terms of communications strategy, that we have.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
38 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Seth David Radwell: The emerging schism within the Democratic Party
Much has been written of late about the fate of the Democratic Party after its poor performance last November and with its damaged brand and lack of a coherent strategy. Over the last several years, the party's primary unifying focus has been assailing President Donald Trump and MAGA, while lacking an articulate compelling message or prescriptive platform. Not only has this left the party adrift, but also, Trump has been all too eager to fill the resulting vacuum, imprinting his 'evil' characterization of the party. While myriad efforts within and adjacent to the party are scrambling to advance a winning strategy for 2026, we can already detect competing agendas. The left flank of the party has a resolute hold on the identity issues it keeps front and center, despite persuasive evidence that this strategy alienates working-class voters. In contrast, the center of the party has been coalescing around what some call the 'abundance agenda' — following the launch of the bestselling book 'Abundance' by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. The agenda centers on an insightful reckoning: How can the Democratic Party represent itself as the problem-solving party of the working class when its track record exhibits innumerable failures in major cities? Accordingly, the abundance strategy focuses on enabling government to undertake the 'big things' it accomplished yesteryear by liberating it from a maze of bureaucratic obstacles. Perhaps the most credible advocate of this revitalized spirit is Josh Shapiro, the charismatic governor of Pennsylvania. His 'get stuff done' approach has resulted in some tangible wins such as the rapid reopening of Interstate 95 in Philadelphia and the expansion of school breakfast programs. In fact, many Democratic leaders in the center recognize that their rapprochement with the progressive wing in recent cycles has resulted in the party estranging its working-class base. But, the Democratic Party has a more fundamental conundrum based on a contradiction that lies at the heart of progressivism itself. As described in detail in Marc Dunkelman's recent book 'Why Nothing Works,' the reason why our government today cannot build the big things it did in past eras (e.g., the interstate highway system and the Social Security system) is because of this very conflict: On one hand, many progressives deliver a clarion call for government to undertake large-scale solutions to the most pressing current policy problems, such as building green energy infrastructure and affordable housing. But at the same time, these same advocates demand controls that often stymie government from getting anything done. Ever since the Vietnam War, a distrust of the establishment has taken root and grown deep, manifested in a fear of yielding broad powers without adequate controls and limitations. Nonetheless, these two instincts underlying progressivism are at cross purposes: It is hard to have it both ways. How can government solve big problems if it is intentionally designed with diffuse power, easily and frequently obstructed or contested? What is remarkable is that these two opposing impulses frequently operate simultaneously. Millions of young people today call for administrative solutions to the climate crisis, while demanding bodily autonomy free from government intervention. As I describe in my book 'American Schism,' the pendulum has vacillated throughout our entire history between eras characterized by these opposing impulses. At times, centrally designed Hamiltonian solutions (designed by elites) dominated, such as after our founding, in the New Deal and post-World War II periods, and again through Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society programs. In other epochs, such as when the Federalist party lost influence in the early 19th century, when Reconstruction failed and during the dawning of the Gilded Age, the Jeffersonian demand for curtailed central power reigned supreme. Since the Ronald Reagan era, the wariness of big government has taken hold on the right. But often overlooked is that progressive reformers in recent decades, fearful of the sins of power-hungry leaders such as New York's Robert Moses, have demanded controls on government, which often lead to unwieldy processes and boxed-in government action. Many of these checkpoints, such as mandated constituent input in the policy development process, are warranted. But as a result, government today at all levels feels more like a vetocracy in which citizens or corporate-sponsored interest groups stifle progress at every turn, often via the slow legal system. Even when a major project does get completed, the number of involved commissions and the lawsuits brought by opposing constituents result in skyrocketing costs and years of delay. Perhaps, most ironically, the consequent gridlock has over time eroded faith in public institutions and created the opening for MAGA-style populism. It is this dynamic that is already clashing within the Democratic Party; the centrists' call to tackle big problems may find itself at loggerheads with the fear of elite-designed solutions within the progressive wing. Moreover, such clashes could impede a cohesive and compelling party revival. Dunkleman argues for an adjustment in the belief that we have leaned too far in hamstringing government. However, our history demonstrates that attempts at moderate 'adjustments' usually overcorrect and result in pendulum swings. How any possible Democratic revival manages this underlying contradiction in its road map may determine whether the party can once again attract the populist voters it used to carry. Seth David Radwell is the author of 'American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation' and winner of an International Book Award for Best General Nonfiction. He is a political analyst and speaker in the business community and on college campuses in the U.S. and abroad.
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats contemplate walkout in Texas
Democratic legislators in Texas could flee the state to prevent the GOP from approving new maps that could expand Republicans' congressional majority. Texas and national Democrats have vowed to fight back while blasting the GOP plans, which could give Republicans five more seats, as discriminatory. Visiting with Democratic state lawmakers in Austin, U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed Thursday that 'all options' should be on the table to stop the GOP plan. But because Democrats are a minority in the state Legislature, they have few options to stop the GOP and face an uphill battle legally and politically. One very real option would be to seek to deny the quorum necessary to keep the Texas state House and Senate functioning, something Democrats might have the numbers to accomplish. 'Democrats don't have many arrows left in their quiver. There simply aren't a lot of things they can do to be able to challenge these maps in the near term,' said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. A quorum break could be the 'nuclear option,' Rottinghaus said, 'because most members don't want to do it that way. They want to stay and fight.' 'But the problem is that they simply don't have a lot of tools legislatively, or in terms of their total numbers to stop or slow things here in Austin.' The map proposal, filed this past week during a special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott (R), comes after President Trump pressed Texas Republicans to draw new maps to protect the party's narrow 219-212 House majority. A public hearing before the state House's Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting was held Friday. Republican state Rep. Cody Vasut, chair of the redistricting panel, said he expects committee action in the coming days, followed by a full state House debate early next week. Specifics of the proposed lines could change as the plan works its way through the state chambers. But it's unlikely that Democrats have enough leverage in the state Legislature — where Republicans are 88-62 in the House and 19-11 in the Senate — to significantly change things in their favor. Faced with similar dynamics in 2003 and 2021, Democrats walked out to stall the Legislature on redistricting efforts and voting restrictions. 'Breaking quorum is a big task, and there's a lot of problems that come with it,' said Lana Hansen, executive director of Texas Blue Action, an Austin-based Democratic advocacy group. 'And I think this situation is particularly volatile because … this [redistricting] is a call from the president of the United States.' Fleeing would likely draw more attention to the brewing redistricting battle, but Abbott could continue to call sessions and the Democrats' absence would stall other business. A quorum break would also be expensive, due to new rules that impose fines for each day a lawmaker has fled, as well as the threat of arrest. Democrats are reportedly fundraising to help pay up if that happens, according to The Texas Tribune. 'In the past, it worked to sort of pause the conversation and start over,' Hansen said of the previous quorum breaks, but she noted that Republicans still got their way. 'At the end of it, it wasn't as successful as we had hoped.' Asked about a potential walkout, U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) told reporters Thursday that 'there are a lot of ways to fight.' Jeffries, asked whether he's urging Texas Democrats to break quorum, said ' all options should be on the table ' but deferred to Texas Democrats. If Democrats can't block the GOP efforts within the Legislature, they'll likely pursue legal action as leaders in and out of the state decry the proposal as discriminatory. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas), one of the lawmakers whose district would be impacted, called the moves 'part of a long, ugly tradition of trying to keep Black and brown [Texans] from having a voice.' Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) called it 'a power grab to silence voters and suppress votes.' Democrats' chances of success with potential legal challenges likely relies on the fate of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), said Mark McKenzie, an Texas Tech associate professor of political science who has practiced law in the state. A major Louisiana redistricting battle is set to be reheard by the Supreme Court next term, and Republicans are increasingly bullish on chipping away at the VRA. 'I think the Democrats, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't eviscerate the Voting Rights Act … would have a good case, in terms of African American majority districts in Texas and how they'll be impacted,' McKenzie said, noting that they might be harder pressed to argue the same of Latino voters, who have increasingly leaned toward the GOP in Texas. 'Legally speaking, the Democrats are not in a great position,' McKenzie added. The party appears to be gearing up for a political battle either way. 'The current map violates the law, and this congressional map will double and triple down on the extreme racial gerrymandering that is silencing the voices of millions of Texans,' Jeffries said Thursday in Austin. 'We will fight them politically. We will fight them governmentally. We will fight them in court. We will fight them in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the people of Texas and beyond.' House Majority PAC, a House Democratic super PAC, announced a new Lone Star Fund this week. It is hoping to raise millions for 2026 challengers if the lines are redrawn. 'If the GOP and the Trump administration think that Texas is the first state that they should look at doing this in, the place that he's most concerned with losing ground in, then we are in play, and my hope is that national investment will come this way,' Hansen said. 'There's still an opportunity for Democrats in Texas. We just might not be able to help flip to the congressional majority that we would like.' And Democrats may have avenues for offsetting GOP gains in Texas with redistricting efforts in other states. 'There's a phrase in Texas: 'what happens here sometimes changes the world.' Well, this is the case where what's happening here is setting off a cascade effect across the country,' said Jon Taylor, the University of Texas at San Antonio's department chair of political science. The developments in Texas have sparked congressional map conversations in several other states, including in California — where Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has said the Golden State might make its own midcycle changes if Texas moves forward. There's also a chance that Lone Star State redistricting backfires on Republicans. For one, the party may appear more focused on redistricting than on deadly Independence Day floods, another special session agenda item. It may also be hard to predict midterm voting patterns. 'Just because Trump won in 2024 in certain parts and certain areas that are currently held by Democrats doesn't mean that's going to translate to success in a midterm election of '26, particularly a midterm election that, nationally, is expected to be potentially a wave election for Democrats,' Taylor said. 'So you could end up with a situation where you've drawn districts that are supposedly for, you know, friendly for Republicans, and all of a sudden, in a year where the economy is going south, Trump's opinion poll numbers continue to decline, you end up with Democrats winning in districts that were designed for Republicans.'
Los Angeles Times
38 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
It's Trump's economy now. The latest financial numbers offer some warning signs
WASHINGTON — For all of President Trump's promises of an economic 'golden age,' a spate of weak indicators last week told a potentially worrisome story as the effects of his policies are coming into focus. Job gains are dwindling. Inflation is ticking upward. Growth has slowed compared with last year. More than six months into his term, Trump's blitz of tariff hikes and his new tax-and-spending bill have remodeled America's trading, manufacturing, energy and tax systems to his liking. He's eager to take credit for any perceived wins and is hunting for someone else to blame if the financial situation starts to totter. But as of now, this is not the boom the Republican president promised, and his ability to blame his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, for any economic challenges has faded as the world economy hangs on his every word and social media post. When Friday's monthly jobs report turned out to be decidedly bleak, Trump ignored the warnings in the data and fired the head of the agency that produces the report. 'Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes,' Trump said on his social media platform, without offering evidence for his claim. 'The Economy is BOOMING.' It's possible that the disappointing numbers are growing pains from the rapid transformation caused by Trump and that stronger growth will return — or they may be a preview of even more disruption to come. Trump's aggressive use of tariffs, executive actions, spending cuts and tax code changes carry significant political risk if he is unable to deliver middle-class prosperity. The effects of his new tariffs are still several months away from rippling through the economy, right as many Trump allies in Congress will be campaigning in the midterm elections. 'Considering how early we are in his term, Trump's had an unusually big impact on the economy already,' said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist at Firehouse Strategies. 'The full inflationary impact of the tariffs won't be felt until 2026. Unfortunately for Republicans, that's also an election year.' The White House portrayed the blitz of trade frameworks leading up to Trump's tariff announcement Thursday as proof of his negotiating prowess. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and other nations that the White House declined to name agreed that the U.S. could increase its tariffs on their goods without doing the same to American products. Trump simply set rates on other countries that lacked settlements. The costs of those tariffs — taxes paid on imports to the U.S. — will be most felt by American consumers in the form of higher prices, but to what extent remains uncertain. 'For the White House and their allies, a key part of managing the expectations and politics of the Trump economy is maintaining vigilance when it comes to public perceptions,' said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. Just 38% of adults approve of Trump's handling of the economy, according to a July poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That's down from the end of Trump's first term when half of adults approved of his economic leadership. The White House paints a rosier image, casting the economy as emerging from a period of uncertainty after Trump's restructuring and repeating the economic gains seen in his first term before the pandemic struck. 'President Trump is implementing the very same policy mix of deregulation, fairer trade, and pro-growth tax cuts at an even bigger scale — as these policies take effect, the best is yet to come,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. The economic numbers over the last week show the difficulties that Trump might face if the numbers continue on their current path: — Friday's jobs report showed that U.S. employers have shed 37,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump's tariff launch in April, undermining prior White House claims of a factory revival. — Net hiring has plummeted over the last three months with job gains of just 73,000 in July, 14,000 in June and 19,000 in May — a combined 258,000 jobs lower than previously indicated. On average last year, the economy added 168,000 jobs a month. — A Thursday inflation report showed that prices have risen 2.6% over the year that ended in June, an increase in the personal consumption expenditures price index from 2.2% in April. Prices of heavily imported items, such as appliances, furniture and toys and games, jumped from May to June. — On Wednesday, a report on gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the U.S. economy — showed that it grew at an annual rate of less than 1.3% during the first half of the year, down sharply from 2.8% growth last year. 'The economy's just kind of slogging forward,' said Guy Berger, senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, which studies employment trends. 'Yes, the unemployment rate's not going up, but we're adding very few jobs. The economy's been growing very slowly. It just looks like a 'meh' economy is continuing.' Trump has sought to pin the blame for any economic troubles on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates — even though doing so could generate more inflation. Trump has publicly backed two Fed governors, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, for voting for rate cuts at Wednesday's meeting. But their logic is not what the president wants to hear: They were worried, in part, about a slowing job market. But this is a major economic gamble being undertaken by Trump and those pushing for lower rates under the belief that mortgages will also become more affordable as a result and boost homebuying activity. His tariff policy has changed repeatedly over the last six months, with the latest import tax numbers serving as a substitute for what the president announced in April, which provoked a stock market sell-off. It might not be a simple one-time adjustment as some Fed board members and Trump administration officials argue. Of course, Trump can't say no one warned him about the possible consequences of his economic policies. Biden, then the outgoing president, did just that in a speech in December at the Brookings Institution, saying the cost of the tariffs would eventually hit American workers and businesses. 'He seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer,' Biden said. 'I believe this approach is a major mistake.' Boak and Rugber write for the Associated Press.
