Obama and McCain
Here's a wonderful op-ed piece that just ran in the New York Times today, about some of the key distinctions between Barack Obama and John McCain. Notice the writer's keen obervation of masculine (agency, rights, justice) and feminine (communion, care, relationship) dynamics at play among these two very different candidates.
Link.
(Thanks Wayne!)
Obama and McCain
by David Brooks
Both Barack Obama and John McCain attract independents. Both have a candor that appeals to voters and media-types alike. Both ask their audiences to serve a cause greater than self-interest. Both offer a politics that is grand and inspiring.
But they are very different men. Their policies obviously conflict, but their skills, world views and moral philosophies set them apart, too. One man celebrates communitarian virtues like unity, the other classical virtues like honor.
Obama’s great skill is his ability to perceive and forge bonds with other people. Everybody who’s dealt with him has a story about a time when they felt Obama profoundly listened to them and understood them. One of mine came a few years ago.
I was writing columns criticizing the Republican Congress, but each time I’d throw in a few sentences slamming the Democrats, subconsciously trying to make myself feel good. One morning I got an e-mail message from Obama that roughly said: David, if you want to critique us, fine. But you’re just throwing in those stray sentences to make yourself feel good.
I felt like a bug pinned down in a display case.
Out of that perceptiveness comes a distinct way of seeing the world. Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of his rivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you’ll get a nation standing up.
The key word in any Obama speech is “you.” Other politicians talk about what they will do if elected. Obama talks about what you can do if you join together. Like a community organizer on a national scale, he is trying to move people beyond their cynicism, make them believe in themselves, mobilize their common energies.
His weakness is that he never breaks from his own group. In policy terms, he is an orthodox liberal. He never tells audiences anything that might make them uncomfortable. In the Senate, he didn’t join the Gang of 14, which created a bipartisan consensus on judges, because it would have meant deviating from liberal orthodoxy and coming to the center.
How do you build a trans-partisan coalition when every single policy you propose is reliably on the left?
John McCain has cordial relations with Obama, but he is very different. He is most moved by examples of heroism and individual excellence. His books are about individual character and patriotism, not networks or community-building.
He is not a loner (in fact, he dislikes being alone), but whether he is a prisoner of war or a senator, he is acutely aware of how corrupt social pressures encroach on individual integrity. While Obama seeks solidarity with groups, McCain resists conformity. He fights fiercely, though not always successfully, against political pressures in order to remain honest, brave and forthright.
In the Senate, he sits in the back of the Republican policy lunches cracking jokes at the hired spin-meisters. He is allergic to blind party discipline and builds radically different coalitions depending on his views on each issue — global warming, campaign finance, spending, the war. He is most offended by dishonor. He’ll be sitting in his Senate office and he’ll read about some act of selfishness — a corrupt Pentagon contract, Jack Abramoff’s scandals — and he’ll spend the next several months punishing wrongdoing.
McCain’s campaign events are unpredictable. At Obama events, the candidate gives a moving speech while the crowd rises deliriously as one. McCain holds town meetings. People challenge him, sometimes angrily. And if they oppose him, McCain will come back to them two or three times so that there can be an honest exchange of views. Some politicians try to persuade their audience that they agree with them. McCain welcomes disagreement and talks about it.
McCain’s weakness is that he flies by the seat of his pants. If elected, he will have to live in the cocoon of the White House and build an organized and predictable administration. As a pilot, he got used to taking off from aircraft carriers. But as president, he’ll be the guy steering the aircraft carrier.
The central issue in this election is the crisis of leadership. Voters are reacting against partisan gridlock. Obama and McCain both offer ways to end this gridlock. Obama wants us to rise above it by rediscovering our commonalities. McCain hopes smash it with fierce honesty and independent action.
Today in New Hampshire, independent voters get to pick the model they prefer.





If only through the miracle
If only through the miracle of modern science we could somehow splice them together at the genetic level to create the über-integral, trans-partisan, meta-political superhero—resplendent with a hundred more prefixes of similar mind-shattering grandiosity, just to demonstrate how unequivocally Integral he would be.
Someday....
Someday is right
I know it's a stalled green attitude in a way, but it makes it difficult to be motivated to actually vote this time around. I rather feel that I want to just sit this one out and let it take it's course since none of the parties represent the total picture right now. Candidate A seems to inhabit a high altitude in one area, while Candidate B embodies another, but lacks Candidate A's view. In the spirit of equanimity, I'm considering letting spirit manifest as it will and bracing to ride the next wave.
david brooks on obama and mccain
also one could say that they aren't integral with regard to age--that mccain has too much experience, alot of which, as he understands it, may not be that relevant to our times; and obama does not have enough experience, in particular, of the 60's, which appears to be central to his vision.
maybe we can't have a completely integral candidate, and maybe it's actually better to have one who includes what is most important at the given moment.
what we could really use, i feel, is more integral reporting. aren't we again seeing something like the reporting on global warming, which ken wilber largely dismissed as muddying the waters rather than actually clarifying what is going on? reporting that serves, say, a conservative or liberal interest, and not that of truth.
in this respect i think david brooks is to be commended for helping to clarify who obama and mccain are.
david brooks
i'm intrigued by the question of how integral various public figures are. ken wilber has suggested that something like as much as 2% of our population may already be at a 2nd tier altitude. typically they intuit an integral approach without realizing it, because it hasn't yet been officially acknowledged by the powers or cultures that be: amber, orange and green, and, of course, one can't see the subject that one is (was), until one is able to make that old subject the object of a new, transformed subject.
'soulfully gay', by joe perez, provides a good example, i think, of someone who had had integral intuitions for some time, but was having difficulty conceptualizing them, because that would go so much against the prevailing grain, until he found out about ken wilber, at which point his ideas crystallized in an amazingly short period of time.
i've just begun reading brooks' second book (2004) 'on paradise drive', which he describes, like his first book 'BOBOS in paradise', as comic sociology. BOBOS was alot about green, from an ostensibly green pov, so that green appears to be both subject and object. 'on paradise drive' appears to be taking a pluralistic (again green) look at the various kinds of burbs that have sprung up throughout america, including those BOBOS would be likely to inhabit. so, again, he's looking at green, although, this time, in conjunction with lesser altitudes.
BOBOS, incidentally, is an acronym for BOurgois BOhemians and, by implication, the BOhemian BOurgoisie. both groups have integrated bourgois, orange values with romantic bohemian values, which i would guess are a problematical green, i.e. subject, as romantics tend to be, to lesser altitudes than what they're reacting against, i.e. to pre/post fallacies.
so, how have they integrated orange and green? is it a healthy green that includes orange, or could it be a healthy teal that includes orange and green? my guess is that the object of the first book is a fairly healthy green, but the author of these two books must be at least at a healthy teal altitude to have perceived all this.
the op-ed piece corey de vos has provided here might be further evidence. by pointing out in a positive way the values that these two candidates possess, isn't he in effect suggesting that a candidate with both these sets of values would be even better?
Enough of the left-right-liberal-conservative paradigm!
There are more political philosophies than that! I like the saying:
Liberals want to be your Mommy.
Conservatives want to be your Daddy.
Libertarians just want to treat you like an adult
Therefore, I'm supporting Ron Paul for president and other libertarian candidates for Congress like Michael Badnarik, Theodore Terbolizard, and Dean Santoro!
Obama McCain
As a woman in my 60's I find it interesting that we are focusing on the differences between two men and have totally ignored the vast difference that a woman would bring to the office of president. We have all been told that people don't like Hillary and we believe it. I believe men don't like strong women! I think the real change is to elect a woman!!
I agree
I agree with you, I think that a lot of people are turned off by how independent and driven she is and they view her almost as if she is a machine, and therefore less human. Everyone wants to see the compassionate nice person that makes everyone feel comfortable. If you look at her life history, she has done everything 110%, regardless of what situation or who was watching. I think that as she is nearing the later years in life, her lifelong drive into politics will increase even more so. I think she (and Bill) will take her (and their) experience /regrets/hopes and come back and completely blow everyone out of the water.
HRC
in reply to laurin,
my limited sense of this is that david brooks does not like either of the clintons. why? lack of character is my guess, since he has praised both obama and mccain in terms of character.
from an integral perspective, character, of course, denotes, more than anything, else, development. which candidate has achieved the highest level of development? my guess, and it's at best only a guess, is obama. but it's not based on just looking at tea leaves. i've carefully read his first book, 'dreams from my father', and have noted many instances of not only what appears to be a 2nd tier perspective, but all-quadrants perspective as well, perhaps because they've been necessary to begin to make sense of his own, difficult life.
HRC
in addition to the candidates we also have to take into account the voters? to what extent are they ready for an HRC presidency? or an obama presidency? given the present, sorry state of republicanism, isn't it possible that either of them could be elected, even if the country is not that ready for such a presidency? perhaps that is what we need, but it would be tough going for either of them.
i think i'm actually in agreement with you in the sense that i suspect that HRC is more prepared to be tough than obama. i'd like to think that she could be the moses and he the joshua, who would get his chance, once she prepared the way.
Post new comment