so now obama's presidential bid is some kind of quest for personal authenticity? now it's a "unific style".
"People who value unity will always choose structure over process, or even outcome. If Obama's core value is unity, Democrats should know better than to expect him to fight their partisan fights for them. And while he may disappoint them, they can also learn to respect the fact that he's being true to himself." yes. you should have known better than to expect barack to fight your partisan fights for you. he needs to be true to himself. but then, if you wanted someone to fight for you, you would have nominated john edwards, who SAID he would fight for you.
i'm looking for more guideposts in barack's inward journey to his authentic self, and the structure he needs, now that the concerns of other people besides barack have become irrelevant.
"...all humanity -- all existence -- is interconnected and equal" talk about profound! fitting iraqi humanity into the sublime portrait of barack as the whole universe will be covered in more advanced obama psychology seminars soon,
Have We Missed the Key to Obama's Leadership Style?
I'm starting to suspect we've all missed the real story behind Barack Obama's leadership style. His recent actions may not have been driven by calculation or centrism, as most people thought, but by something else. He may have a core value that's new to our political process -- one that exists on a different plane, grounded in a web of personality, spirituality, and culture.
I had to think back many years -- and many thousands of miles -- before I remembered where I'd seen his kind of style before:
Japan.
When I did some work there nearly twenty years ago I encountered some of the same traits we're seeing in Obama now: The urge for consensus. The courtesy toward all parties, no matter how strong the disagreements. The nearly-holographic quality of appearing different to different observers. The centeredness and self-control.
It may be coincidental. Or it may be the result of growing up with Hawaii's Pacific Rim influence. But Obama's management style resembles the classic Japanese model. And, at least historically, these haven't just been behaviors. They're living embodiments of a spiritual perception which says that all humanity -- all existence -- is interconnected and equal.
The operative word, the core value behind this behavior, is unity. Unity means preserving the integrity of a social group. Where elections and debates emphasize process, and policies focus on outcome, unity creates an emphasis structure. That's unfamiliar to us.
People who value unity will always choose structure over process, or even outcome. If Obama's core value is unity, Democrats should know better than to expect him to fight their partisan fights for them. And while he may disappoint them, they can also learn to respect the fact that he's being true to himself.
Obama's been frustrating observers across the political spectrum lately. Progressive bloggers are debating whether he's driven by cynicism or centrism, while the rightwingers at Human Events claim there's a "Secret Plan Behind Obama's Move to the Right!"
They're all missing the point. He's not moving to the Right. His political architecture isn't built on the old foundation of Right vs. Left -- or on Right vs. Wrong, for that matter. It isn't even binary. When it comes to policy he inclines toward the progressive position, but he's not thinking in terms of "winning" or "losing." His goal is group unity around the best possible realistic outcome. That means assess the situation, get what you can, then move to bring the parties together around a new consensus.
We can speculate on why Obama might be driven by unity. Family history? Community organizing? Christianity? That Pacific Rim upbringing? We can't know for sure. But if the model's right Obama's highest loyalty will always be to the nation as a group, and he'll sacrifice partisan interests to preserve its cohesion. He won't get overly attached to any specific policy position. In the end, he'll make his assessment about what he can get and then default to the unifying position.
He won't "bring the fight to the enemy" where the GOP is concerned, either. In fact, he doesn't necessarily even see an enemy -- just fellow group members with whom he must eventually reconcile. He will be able to inspire and lead -- but he won't be able to inflame and arouse. He will never be a firebrand. (Interestingly, despite his ability to excite a crowd he struck me as cool and analytical -- "clinical" was the word that came to mind -- the one time I saw him in close quarters.)
If I'm right, how should progressives respond? First, by making their voices heard through groups like Get FISA Right. Don't stop now. A consensus-builder's process will always be influenced by groups like this. Secondly, by not taking it personally when he moves on. Recognize that it's part of his style: He believes he's done all he can do (whether you agree with him or not -- in FISA's case I don't), and that now it's time to bring the group together.
In some ways Obama's novel values could be extremely valuable, even transformational, for our political process. But they could also lead him down some blind alleys and leave him open for sucker punches. So far he's been impressive at dodging those punches -- but where the Right's concerned, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Still, I wouldn't bet against him.
Obama's unific style has sometimes disappointed me. But I've also found it fascinating to watch. And it's given me an opportunity to re-examine my own style, which has been rewarding.
Two factors are making this election historical: the political power of the Internet, and Obama's management approach (whatever its origins.) That gives us a chance to relate to a politician in new ways -- by detaching from him, studying his leadership model, and then interacting with him tactically and strategically.
Strangely enough, I get the feeling he'd like that. More importantly, it's a good exercise for us.After all, the best thing we can do politically is to become smarter and more flexible. That makes each of us more capable of supporting our most important value - whether it's unity or something completely different, like freedom. Or justice.
But whatever your core value, we can agree on one thing for unity's sake: It's going to be an interesting year.
RJ Eskow blogs:
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It amazes me that the thing that drove so many people to follow him in the first place, his talk of unity, is what is upsetting people now that he doesn't vote the way you wanted him to. What makes you have all of the answers? Could you possibly be wrong about what the best thing is for this country?
My favorite line of this blog:
'Obama's highest loyalty will always be to the nation as a group, and he'll sacrifice partisan interests to preserve its cohesion.'
Sounds presidential to me!
he's not sacrificing partisan interests. he's selecting different partisan interests to reward than the partisan interests he advocated to win his primaries. he is simply changing his partisan interests- not sacrificing them.
to me, the line you quoted is fuzzy b.s. especially "the nation as a group". the nation is not a "group". actually, his oath will be to uphold the constitution, not the "nation as a group". the idea of the president herding the nation into his concept of a "cohesive group" is at once hilarious and disturbing.
So Obama's need for unity caused him to stick a knife in the back of the our privacy rights? The man said he would NOT vote for telecom immunity and would fillibuster any bill that had it. No smooth talking can change the fact that he went back on his own word. This makes me wonder what other rights of ours he won't sacrifice in the name of winning in November. I understand we need compromise to get things done because this is a so called democracy, but many folks would like to know that their President is willing to hold his ground and fight when it comes to standing up for our constitutional rights. There are some things you have to draw a line in the sand on and be willing to not budge and our constitutional rights are one of them. If I'm considered "far left" or extreme for taking this position then so be it. I will still vote for Obama in November because McCain is no better but I feel like I am back to the "voting for the lesser of two evils" feeling I go through every election.
"No smooth talking can change the fact that ..."
You're right, but I think that they have given up on the smooth talking.
Now we are in the shouting and name-calling phase.
Well said!
I am sure glad our founding fathers weren't more interested in UNITY with the crown than fighting for their rights.
As I have been saying since day 1 of the primary, this is a time in our nation's history that the pendulum is SO FAR right that we need a figher, not a uniter to yank it back. BO would have been great as pres to follow-up a a dem president who was a fighter who could bring the pendulum back. Then a uniter like BO would be perfect.
Regardless, BO in 08.
And what, exactly, would they be fighting? Black people fought for decades for the simple notion of equal protection under the law and mostly what happened in response was the worse kind of violence on record. White citizens who stood on that side stood in defiance of the Feds, determined to fight to a ridiculous extreme, to maintain the status quo. The wounds of such resistance are yet to be played out as the very nation they fought so hard to maintain is steadily slip sliding away.
What baffles most Black people is that very tenacity. What drives it? How profound and deep rooted is the hatred and misunderstanding. All that to just say that if there were some road to compromise and deeper understanding this nation could stand strong and confront injustice instead of after two hundred plus years as a nation, we continue to have to fight each other.
The democrats never stopped fighting, they just stopped fighting for their constituents.
With our record in recent conflicts, isn't it about time we think differently about this fighting notion.
Sh*t gets old.
Unity?
So, if there is any opposition by any group to any Constitutional principle, the unity-answer is to cave in to those offering the opposition.
No thank you.
The one thing progressives need is for Senator Obama to win this election, and that is exactly what he is doing. Just think about how incredibly smart he is playing his hand. If he were to continue down the road with a tactic of being a "new kind of politician," with lofty rhetoric, the spin would be that he was all talk and no action. That kind of campaigning cannot be sustained for 3 or 4 months. He's in a unique position where seeming like a normal politician is good for him. His biggest hurdle right now is that people see him as too much change, or too different, or just plain scary. So while he is down playing the things that we all fell in love with him about, he is appealing to the center. He's getting in there comfort zone, and he's also saving up his charisma for the convention and beyond. This election is all about Barack Obama. It's his to win or lose. No one can understand why the polls show this race as being so close, but this is exactly where he needs to be a this point in time. He's still the challenger. He has an uphill battle to convince people he is not scary. I have every confidence that he'll pull it off, and that he will in fact be a new kind of politician when he gets in office. He has the makings of a truly great President.
This post and these comments are nothing but rationalizations. My personal favorite so far..."he's also saving up his charisma for the convention and beyond." Thanks LeeFromVA. I didn't know anyone could do that. Is that like when you think you want to be charming......but wait.........save it for later. Next time someone says I'm moody, I'm going to tell them I'm saving my charisma for later.
Frustrated, timing is important in an election. Obama has a lot of challenges to overcome. He should be winning by a landslide, but he is a black man with a funny name and his enemies are trying their best to portray him in a bad light. All I was saying is that he has to play it safe. Unfortunately for him and for us, he has to do more than just be right on the issues and show good judgement. HE HAS TO MAKE HIMSELF ACCEPTABLE TO REDNECK AMERICA. Fortunately for us, he is willing to do what it takes to win. AND truth be known, he really does have respect for every American, so it's not that big of a stretch. There's no way everybody can agree with every position of any candidate. The problem is that liberals want to project their beliefs on to our candidate, and if they keep it up they're going to screw up a good thing. Given all that Obama has going against him, I think he's doing a phenominal job, and I trust him.
You people are just getting that he is a compromiser? Where have you been for the last year and half of this primary and election? If you didn't know this from the beginning the reason is that you were so caught up in the Obama magic, you missed the obvious. Congratulating the aurthoer and yourself on this now is insulting to the rest of us who weren't blind and actually LISTENED to the issues and the words he was saying instead of swooning over him.
The question was always if you wanted a fighter (HRC, Biden, etc) or a compromiser (BO). I wanted the fighter because compromise comes as a RESULT of the debate of the ledt and right. You don't want to start out in the center as a compromiser. Even the effort to praise BOs position as a compromiser reaks of koolaide at this point. You don't start from a position of compromise in debate. That means you don't stand for anything and you are going to end up moving too far right to get the compromise.
Regardless, I will vote for BO because the alternative policy is too far right and I wouldn't mind listening to BO give speeches for 8 years, but I can't stomach the praising of BOs centrist views as wise.
You don't start from a position of compromise in a debate? That's the easiest way to draw your opponent out and leave him/her with no endgame. Everybody wants to be a starter, but the best players are on the floor at the end. Even you, for all the caterwauling, intend to vote for Obama.
I could vote present, like Obama.
You have obviously never done any negotiating. You don't enter negotiations with all your card on the table saying, "this is where I am willing to give" like BO has done on later term abortion, etc.
You take a stand, then fight for your position and then you give in where you need to, but you don't start by giving in. You end up giving away the store that way.
Besides, the president is not the role of "moderator" between the parties. The POTUS should stand for something and then negotiate from there.
100% on target. The dirty little secret is that the left-wing children of the Sixties in all generations are just as opposed to national unity as are the right-wing ones. Obama is determined to end this nonsense, and if elected he will, the same way he's ended the completely antiquated "Civil Rights Movement," which has also operated as a dead hand on progress in the present for decades. The essence of democracy is compromise. The stupidity of the childish politics of the Sixties was demonizing your enemies and trying to stay "pure" and "uncompromised." FDR, Truman, and JFK would have considered this childish and unreal. Obama's a wonderful throwback to the days in which relative bi-partisanship ruled in America, and as a result, the government actually functioned to improve the lives of Americans, instead of giving us endless, futile, destructive gridlock. Left-wingers created a secular-humanist "theology" in the Sixties that's every bit as self-righteous and dogmatic as the theology of the Rev. Hagee. Obama is going to end American politics as an expression of one's righteousness and moral superiority. Thank GOD he's a Chicago politician (gasp!). Both Richard Daley I and Richard Daley II have been among the most effective political leaders in modern American history, and both were great for the flourishing of Chicago, "'68 or no '68." And never forget that the greatest president in American history was a ruthlessly pragmatic product of Illinois.
jeanrenoir, you've made my point nicely here--though clearly not intending to do so. The Daleys may (debatably) have been among the "most effective political leaders in modern American history". But they decidedly were NOT any "new kind of politician" or "new kind of leader". We don't need any metaphysical analysis of Obama's shifts to the center-right. He's doing it because he's a skilled politician and he wants to win in Nov. I fear that he may have miscalculated and is injuring his "brand" in the process; which is to say, he's coming across as just another politician, the same-old-same-old. It's hard for people to get passionate about that; which is probably why he's in a dead heat with McCain in a year when ANYONE should be able to beat the Repub candidate handily.
APPLAUSE!!!cadbury
It's 2004 all over again. Democrats never learn.
"When it comes to policy he inclines toward the progressive position, but he's not thinking in terms of "winning" or "losing." "
This is a huge hunk of rationalization from one of the biggest promoters of Obama (and detractors of HRC) on HuffPo. Please! His move to the center-right is absolutely all about "winning" in Nov. When will you admit it? The guy is a politician--with skills honed in Chicago no less!
That said, he's a bright guy who appreciates nuance and (hopefully) values consensus. So, while I 've never been as enamored with him as Mr. Eskow, I'm voting for him in Nov. The alternative is too awful to contemplate.
Great observation and an insightful read RJ!
I believe it is all of the above but most specifically the influence of living on the Pacific Rim. I am a New Zealand Maori (a Polynesian) and Obama's core of unity is kindred to me. I recognise it and revel in it. I have listened to him, I have read him, and he lives with an awareness of the conciousness of peoplehood.
His FISA vote did not faze me. I recognised his vote as a vote for the "emphasis structure" of the issue.
I applauded Obama his stand, his flexibility to focus on what could be acheived and to take it.
It must noted too, RJ, that Obama has been saying since last year that he was in favor of creating a "Democratic Coalition" which would included disaffected Republicans and Independents, you know, something similar in style to Reagan's "Republican Coalition" which included Blue collar Democrats and Independents.
I believe such a coalition could help advance this nation in ways that weren't possible under the last Democratic President - due to the collective weight of Lewinsky and tother salacious scandals.
People need to know that they will not always agree with Obama, nor should they. Legislation is born out of debate, and dissension, and even disappointment. And progressives like myself will go through all of these stages with Obama, as we would any other president.
He is going to be a great commander-in-chief.
So I suppose we're to give up the bill of rights in favor of some mystical hippie "unity"?
Have you ever read the constitution?
Welcome to Jonestown folks.
Like you wrote above: "Obama's highest loyalty will always be to the nation as a group".
You hit the nail on the head R.J....Obama is all about unity. He appreciates diversity...of people as well as their opinions!
Obama's commitment to diversity is one of the reasons I am supporting him. And that is something that comes across to the public and that will continue to define him positively. His campaign has been the most racially and ethnically diverse throuout the entire 2008 campaign.
His camapign embraces and and showcases not only Obama's depth of support in every community, but also the depth of diversity that, EVERYDAY, is making America more multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-racial than the previous day.
I agree with Obama: we need to develop a permanent political othodoxy that views "diversity to be a positive rather than dividing force for the country." Simply put, we need someone like Obama who embraces both the color- and ethnic-specific differences that make us unique, and, the color- and ethnic-neutral commonalities that bring us together.
And when Obama makes his nominating speech on the anniversary of the 1963 "March on Washington" anniversary, this issue will define him further. Its going to be powerful speech because Martin Luther King spent his last birthday (Jan. 15, 1968) in the basement of Ebernezer Baptist Church, with civil rights activists from major groups: blacks, latino activists, white activists from appalachia, asian-american activists, and jewish activists. POWERFUL!!!
I am all for celebrating diversity, and to recognise that "different is not deficient" said (the latter) by the much maligned Rev. Wright.
To undo the damage of the last 8 years (and longer, actually), America will require a radical swing way from the types of policies that got us into this mess. That requires a fighter, not a diplomat. It requires bold leadership, not going-along-to-get-along. Obama's "centrist" incrementalism just won't cut it. He will be little more than a band-aid President. I am confident he will win (although not with my vote), but this country will have the same basic problems when he's done. Only more time will have been wasted without addressing the underlying ills of the nation, making them even harder to solve.
"America will require a radical swing"
That is part of the reason Bill and Hillary helped bring on the Republican takeover of Congress.
Obama doesn't need to make a radical swing when he is elected, he just needs at least 60 Senators to have Democratic legislation that's "filibuster proof".
RJ makes a good point. Obama comes across as a truly sensible, and flexible person, which you need to be in a country that is divided along BLUE & RED fault lines.
Nonsense. Bill Clinton governed as a moderate Republican. He triangulated and incrementalized and adopted a fairly REPUBLICAN agenda. And they still went after him because the last thing Republicans want to see is a successful Dem President, even if he does things they like. Especially if he succeeds using THEIR agenda.
Once again the Dems are being sucked into glassy-eyed, going-along-to-get-along not understanding that the right has no intention of cooperating.
You're taking a slingshot to a gunfight.
Lies and betrayal is not leadership. Obama may be the most dangerous man in America.
Nader/Gonzales 2008
Posted July 11, 2008 | 11:01 PM (EST)