Monday, January 21, 2008

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama


Quote of the day:
“No matter what you’re feeling, the only way to get a difficult feeling to go away is simply to love yourself for it. If you think you’re stupid, then love yourself for feeling that way. It’s a paradox, but it works. To heal, you must be the first one to shine the light of compassion on any areas within you that you feel are unacceptable.”
--Christiane Northrup

I’ve been a registered Democrat my entire voting life, though I’ve sometimes voted for Republicans or Independents. This presidential primary has put me in an unusual position.

I’ve always believed in the ineffable power of inspiration. In every job I’ve held I’ve argued for a better balance between pragmatism and idealism.

Over time, most organizations become very pragmatic operations, relying primarily on data, budgets and concrete results. This approach is necessary, of course. But what often happens is that any sense of dreaming a better future gets short shrift in the the never-ending push for efficiency.

For ultimate survival, and certainly for growth in the long-term, the inspiration of an eloquently-stated ideal is vital. Many years ago, some management experts realized this, and the now-ubiquitous (and almost cliched) “mission statement” was born.

Yet even mission statements have been co-opted. They now are simply big goals, because some pragmatists at the table insist they be measurable. We forget that everything else in an organization’s plan is measurable, and that all of it falls under an inspiring ideal.

There is something that defines the organization and what it is becoming. There is power and resonance in a well-written mission statement.

There is power also in a well-written and delivered speech which speaks to the deep, unspoken desires of an audience. Abraham Lincoln was very sensitive to this, which is why he worked so long and hard on his four-minute Gettysburg Address, which became the best-known speech in our history.

Martin Luther King was aware of this, too, and that is why his eight-minute “I Have a Dream” speech was so painstakingly prepared and passionately delivered.

Both Lincoln and King were also very astute politically. Each of them came together with a variety of people to get things done.

Barack Obama has an extraordinary oratorical gift. His speeches seem to be meeting a deep-seated need for relief from the unfortunate divisiveness of recent politics. This divisiveness, and the seeming impossibility of any change for the better, have brought on a lethargic cynicism that grinds on our souls.

I will support Obama if he is the Democratic nominee, but I am supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary.

There are several reasons, but the most important two are these. First, we need someone as President who can get things done--who has demonstrated ability to work with diverse groups of people to make things happen. Obama may be able to do this, but I don’t see much in his record to show it.

Second, national politics is and always will be a game of inches--of small victories that add up. This would give Clinton a significant edge as president, when compared to Obama.

Obama says wonderful things about the need for change, and for our government to be more positive and even uplifting. This is a great ideal. Yet the kind of change he is talking about--which is undefined--involves a huge shift in our political culture.

The only way such a huge shift can occur is if all the people who vote for him continue to be politically involved after he becomes president. They must actively insist that such change occur--to their congresspeople, federal agencies and the press. They must participate.

I don’t see that happening. Instead, what I fear is that six months into Obama’s presidency, he will be bogged down with congress, the military and the federal bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, all of us who voted for him will be waiting for change to happen, and beginning to complain that it hasn’t.

Then other people will begin running for president.

No comments: