I thought Obama represented the end of Politics as usual

While many Americans hoped for Hope and gave their spare change for Change, it's not hard to see that in many ways, they're not getting what they bargained for. At least, not yet. While we can't fully hold President Obama accountable for the tone, tenor and strategies of the Republican party, he did promise us a new tone in Washington where we'd respect each others' differences, and return to a politics of respect and dignity of public service.

Yet to listen to the Republicans of late, they sound remarkably similar to the Democrats over the past seven years -- they are strident, angry and self-righteous. Whether the topic is health care (with the "we don't believe a government bureaucrat should come between you and your doctor" nonsense) or Iran (with the "it's not clear to us who's side Obama is on in this uprising" crap), the Republicans are out there trying to score "differential points" -- simple base-building building blocks that separate them in any way from the Democratic President. In other words, it's all about careers, and the country is merely the stage.

Speaking of stages, President Obama himself is quite the stage master, and uses his own presence as a platform for political success. For instance, in his latest press briefing, he strategically tipped off a reporter from Slate ahead of time to ensure he was there and available to be picked on. Why? Because Obama knew that it would be a very politically-savvy move to have a question asked by an Iranian through a U.S. blogger/reporter. This type of stagecraft is quite reminiscent of of the Bush/Cheney years, where every public event was staged to picture-perfect perfection.

Lastly, Obama has simply not wooed Congress to support his agenda. Not only hasn't he wooed, but he promised even more -- that he'd make headway in bi-partisanship. Not seeing much of that bi-partisanship happening, Mr. President, are we?

However, his relationship with congress is a double-edged sword. Constitutionally, the way he's playing it is probably the right way to view the role of the President -- set the agenda and stay out of the rancor and scuttlebutt. This is certainly different from G. W. Bush and his heavy-handed leadership of the congress. So, that's a kind of a Change. But the flip side is that for every disagreement between the Executive and Legislative branches, there will be a requisite political fights and posturing in order to get what each side desires. These fights will remind us all that it's essentially impossible to change the tone of Washington until every elected official truly feels like a civil servant instead of a career politician.

You've been spotted

I just received this image in my inbox:



Mind you, this is not the only anti-Obama/Democrat mail I've received in the past few months. It's merely one in a litany of propagandist campaigns designed to continue to drum up opposition to the Democratic approach to managing America's problems.

I feel strongly that propaganda is wrong. It's misleading, unbalanced, and designed around a pre-conceived agenda. In other words, it robs us from the freedom of thought. It creates a narrow perspective from which to view reality. This, to me, is anti-freedom, which is anti-American.

So, in the name of freedom, what needs to be said is that while Democrats are surely not wary of raising taxes, it should be heard loud and clear that the reason they're so bent on raising taxes is not to line their own pockets (which is precisely what capitalists do when they raise your rates and raise prices on goods and services). Rather, Democrats raise taxes in an attempt to solve the country's problems. Democrats simply believe that the free market is not the right vehicle to solve social problems on its own. Democrats believe that social problems are best solved with social funds.

Now, you and I (and others) can disagree on what social problems need solving. And we can disagree on whether private or social funds are best suited to solve social problems. That's a fair debate. But what's very uncool is turning this overarching Democratic philosophy of how to solve social problems and turning it into a "I want your money" propaganda message as this cartoon depicts.

Propaganda is used by those who are afraid of losing on the merits.

America, the home of the _____

Fill in the blank. Brave, right?

Thought so. Which is why I find it so curious that Newt Gingrich asserted that Obama's magnanimity toward Hugo Chavez as a "terrible signal" and "dangerous." Newt, who has floated 99 trial balloons that he's thinking of running for President in 2012, oddly is showing how fearful he is of Chavez's ability to use Obama's graciousness as propaganda to advance his presence in the region. Conversely, by demonstrating cordiality, Obama is demonstrating that he is anything but intimidated by a small-time political player.

Somehow, someway, Newt and his conservative colleagues on the Right still subscribe to the notion that being gracious, magnanimous and bigger than our foes is a bad idea. Conservatives still grasp onto the notion that we ought to lower ourselves down to the level of a petty dictator, where we should use whatever power we have to assert our control, and to clearly define our allies and enemies to make sure that we're seen as being tough -- like a bully who puts up a front to protect himself from his inner weakness.

Yes, Newt and what's left of the Republican party want us to continue to act like a little dictator, while Obama wants us to act like the superpower we are.

It's stunning how far the Republicans have been led down this dead-end path of being so small on the global stage. Republicans from the 60s through the 90s were never like this. They were much more the adults of the world, rising above pettiness, and being bigger than our allies and our foes. Not any longer; the Republicans have apparently ceded this diplomatic high-ground to the Democrats -- and particularly to Obama, who is more like a old-style Republican in his foreign policy than any Democrat would like to admit.

What Newt and friends have yet to figure out is that if they continue to play devil's advocate to everything Obama does well, they're simply going to be representing how to do things poorly. That's just not a very solid platform from which to build an opposition movement.

Are Republicans becoming disgruntled employees?

Karl Rove gleefully tweeted about Jackson Diehl's Washington Post column, which echoes the Republican rhetoric that being accommodating somehow needs to come at the exclusion of being a leader.

It should not be a surprise that Republicans believe that empathy is weak, and being obstinate is strong and leadership-y. Unfortunately, this is a hollowed shell of what real, effective leadership is.

Much new research in leadership and organizational dynamics points to the exact opposite of what conservatives believe work in terms of leadership style. Merely being "tough" and "strong" to the exclusion of listening, mapping and demonstrating compassion have proven be ineffective.

In fact, servant leadership is proving to be one of the more effective ways to maximize human capital over the long term. Sure, push-rod, top-down, authoritarian leadership can work in the short-term, but I think most of us would agree that America's playing this game for the long term.

There appears to be a fundamental difference between conservative and progressive leadership philosophies. Ironically, the executive class in America is more likely to understand the benefits of positive, servant leadership, even though they are mostly Republicans. Read a few books on the nation's top CEOs. You'll quickly learn that the best of the best have strong visions for the future, but also understand that listening and compromising are absolutely critical to achieving that vision. No modern CEO has ever succeeded over the long-term by "going it alone" and dragging his constituents with him with tough talk. Think about it: as a CEO, do you want to infuriate your vendors (i.e., allies), or create win-win scenarios with them?

Obama's approach to our allies and other nations so far represents what the best business leaders in the world practice in their own organizations. Like any CEO, we'll see how effective his leadership is after his plans and strategies are given time to make an impact. The Republican outrage every step of the way ends up being similar to the disgruntled employee who doesn't like the new CEO. And we all know how effective and valuable disgruntled employees are.

Potpourri of politics

The political sphere is spinning at rapid pace.  First, AIG bonuses mean Geithner should step down, and soon after he's seen as gaining his footing and finding his voice as the architect of the financial crisis recovery.   But architecting a recovery is different than the transformational change that many are looking for after witnessing the kind of crisis the existing financial system got us into. 

And then there's President Obama.  I can't even keep track of what Obama is doing these days.  One day, he's making history and offending handicapped people on Jay Leno, and on another day he's maniacally laughing on 60 Minutes, and then he's doing virtual town hall meetings where he's trying to avoid being the President who legalized marijuana.  Then he about faced and announced a new AfPak strategy just in case y'all forgot we're losing a war out there, and Bin Laden is still alive and kickin'.  I'm sure I've skipped a bunch of things Obama did, said, and changed since last week.  Say what you will; this is a mighty energetic President.  

And all of that doesn't even touch on the hubbub Obama created by his prime-time news conference.  In a recent editorial in WaPo, Michael Gerson defends Obama's dependence on the teleprompter as just another way of being authentic.   I think Gerson protects too much.  Obama' reliance on the teleprompter (or LCD monitor, in the case of the news conference) works against his brand as a genuine leader.   Yes, speeches can be genuine, and just because it's written doesn't mean it's not from the heart.  But, too often, we look to our leaders to master stagecraft and symbols as a substitute for being allowed to be human -- one of us who happens to have a fantastic responsibility.   Why must we pretend, nay, insist that our President be otherworldly in his/her perfection?  In his news conference, Obama clearly indicated that he can speak off the cuff quite effectively.  But if we hadn't seen that side of him, there would have been many who would have implicitly presumed he is an empty suit. 

And no potpourri of politics would be complete without reviewing the row between the recently-awakened deficit hawk Republicans and Obama's deficit spending budget plan.  It's easy to argue that deficit spending is bad, and that more government is the problem, not the solution.   It's harder, however, to argue the point that America should not seriously consider re-investing in itself far beyond business as usual.   This, by definition, requires deficit spending beyond the current deficit.   The point?  Obama is setting the re-investment agenda based on what he ran on, and what he believes is the right thing to do for America.  Republicans are not helping America by playing the "no new taxes; shrink government" card.  This is not engaging in debate, it's a fingers-in-ears-I-can't-hear-you move.  If Republicans want to have influence in the debate, then they should debate on the merits of investment vs. non-investment in strategic economic sectors such as health care, energy and education.    Until they engage in the re-investment debate in a substantive way, they don't really deserve my or your attention. 

It's storytelling time

In Larry Summers' recent speech on the economy, he actually started to paint a picture of what exactly we're experiencing (through useful metaphors), and more importantly, he explained how and why Obama's economic plan was actually going to work.   He was clearly not going to commit to the when's, but I have to say it was a bit of a relief to hear how all of these policies were going to address the issues that we're facing as a nation.

As good as the speech was, it was only the very tip of the iceberg in the telling of "the story" -- the story about what we're currently experiencing, and about how the different components of Obama's plan will deliver us sustainable growth.  

While the term sustainable is typically reserved for green strategies, it's a very appropriate term for what Obama's plan is attempting to accomplish.  Yet, bizarrely, Obama feels it appropriate to frame his plan as one that will enable a "post-bubble economy."  Really?   Is that really preferable to a "sustainable economy"?   In any case, Obama is bucking conventional wisdom that the stock market's reaction is an indicator of his plans' viability.  Rather, Obama is convinced that the stock market will reject his plans in the short-term, but will turn around when it sinks in how this deep investment plan will benefit the economy in a deeper way than we're used to seeing in modern politics. 

Despite the shocking and scary amounts of money being spent and proposed to move America forward, there is some good thinking across the board within the Obama economic team.  However, it took way too much of my time and effort to piece it together and to get somewhat comfortable with it.  Obama, the great communicator, needs to tell Americans a story that we can easily wrap our heads around; a story that explains the investment of our tax dollars as a path to future long-term prosperity that will pay dividends far beyond the investment.  

It's already difficult to justify historic levels of continued government spending in the wake of an administration that allowed deficits to rise uncontrollably.   Americans have every right to feel queasy about a proposed $3.6 trillion budget on the heels of a $700 billion TARP fund and a $780 billion stimulus package.   But if the story is told properly, not only will Americans understand that the $3.6 trillion includes the tremendous costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that the prior President handed over to Obama, but also includes investments in many key services that Americans want and demand. 

Obama will eventually lose the information war if he does not effectively re-frame his budget as a story.  He cannot require people to listen to the less-than-electric speeches of Larry Summers to fully understand the situation and the proposed solutions.

Now or Later?

It's been too quiet at Between the Columns, I know. Consider it processing time. There are a lot of political dynamics swirling around of late, and I would rather hang-tight and remain tight-lipped than simply echo things being said everywhere else. But I've simmered enough. It's time to say something. In fact, a few things.

• A dramatic recession is increasingly applying pressure on the country, which is being used as a political sword by both Democrats and Republicans. This is normal and expected.
  
• Obama is rapidly and boldly executing on his campaign promises, but doing so without an overarching narrative. Not surprising, as Obama did the same thing during his campaign.
  
• Republicans continue to cling to free-market fantasies as the free-market they enabled collapses around them. Yet people expect conservatives to change their beliefs based on new realities? Conservative means resistant to change. Obama's orientation to transformational change represents most everything that will drive a conservative up a tree. Nobody should be expecting bi-partisanship. Doesn't mean Obama doesn't still need to try.
  
• Republicans suddenly got religion on deficit spending. The suspicious timing of their deep, deep concern rings hollow and partisan. They might actually have a point -- but please, don't expect us to take you seriously when you effortlessly mix partisanship with patriotism.
  
• Democrats surrounding Obama are looking for sweet, sweet revenge now that they run the joint. Doing so is undermining Obama's brand. Obama doesn't seem to care much, which is likely the result of knee-capping Chicago-style politics entering Washington D.C.
  
• Sec. of Treasury Timothy Geithner might be the smartest, most knowledgeable wonk in the room, but I sniff Emanuel's influence on this pick. Geithner for deputy Sec. of Treasury.
• Emanuel v. Limbaugh is the pillow fight that makes Beltway Boys snicker, and what turns off Betsy McMansion. Be careful, hacks. Hackery sells better when people have money to buy stuff.
  

But I think the Big News is the conflict of cultures that has been cast upon us.

The first culture is the pre-existing one -- the culture that enables Wall Street to believe it reflects the value of America's assets on a daily basis, and a culture that has convinced most Americans that the stock market is the primary tool to ensure future prosperity. It's a Culture of Now that is uniquely American; a culture that you can either be proud of because it rewards risk and action, or sneer at because of how short-sighted and nonstrategic it is.

The second culture is Obama's systems-thinking approach to management and strategy: In this Culture of Later, Obama thinks more like an executive of a large company, where it's all about the 5-year strategic plan. Typically, an executive will have a vision for the future, set short- and long-term goals, and invest in the right infrastructure and assets required to multiply the money invested into future profits and value. And, executives of publicly-traded companies (at least the respected ones) rarely make large changes to their strategic plan based on the daily or monthly value of their stock. This Culture of Later can really freak out people who are addicted to the Culture of Now. To the now'ers, it can appear that later'ers like Obama are "above it all" and don''t really care about you or the fact that you're losing a piece of your life savings every day. In addition, now-loving institutions like the stock market of course react negatively to this new culture in Washington. The markets like predictability, and a new culture of governing is really not very comforting for those who prefer to know exactly how tomorrow will unfold.

Obama likely knows all of this, and is patiently waiting for people and systems to get comfortable with his culture of later approach to society. The man's got a vision for this country, and since he won his election based primarily on the notion of change, it looks like he's going to invest our money to support his vision of what change means. He's the new CEO of America, Inc., and we, the people, are the shareholders who put him in office. In about four years, the shareholders will hold another meeting to decide if we're going to keep him around to continue to advance his vision, or not.

The question everyone loves to ask is: "Should Obama be engaging in a series of massive social investments during such a huge economic crisis?" The answer is more or less academic, because it appears to be precisely what Obama has decided to do.