The past few days have been filled with diaries excoriating Obama for tapping various people from the Clinton days for top positions, as well as concerns that his efforts at "bipartisanship" and reaching across the aisle somehow mean that the "change" we all so desperately long for will turn out to be no more than a slogan.
The Senate's failure to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship particularly rankles (although it was a Senate, not an Obama, decision), and his apparent decision to tap Clinton as SoS has set off a spirited discussion as to whether, rather than seeing "change", we are merely seeing a recycled third term of a Clinton administration.
According to the popular media, the "left-wing liberal blogosphere" (that would be us) is ready to turn on Obama and withhold further support because he is not the progressive we had hoped and worked for.
So let's "see like an Obama" for a minute and see if we can understand what may be taking place.
The reason I went from supporting Obama as the best of several good choices to being a committed Obama supporter willing to donate money, time, and service was not just because he inspired hope and embodied change, although inspiration and hope certainly got my attention.
To me, what makes Obama a possibly once-in-a-lifetime leader is his uncommon ability to see holistically. What does "holisitic vision" mean? It means an experiential understanding of "connectedness". I am not talking about "causal connectedness," like falling dominoes transmitting action from one to another. I am talking about having a holistic vision which understands that, in a way that we have not yet been able to fully understand or express scientifically (although quantum mechanics provides the framework), we are all innately interconnected in a universal "world wide web" so that, whatever happens anywhere also on some level happens everywhere. Whatever affects anyone affects everyone.
Holistic vision means understanding that "either/or" thinking, which sees the world as either black, or white, and the dynamic as "either me, or you" while accurate on a certain level (the individual level), breaks down and utterly fails to explain phenomena and experiences on another, deeper level, which (paradoxically) is both inconsistent with and at the same time existent with the individual level. Holistic understanding sees past the limits of linear thinking and grasps -- not just intellectually but also intuitively -- the wholeness of systems from the most minute to the most universal.
Back on March 27, 2008, when Obama was still in the midst of the Rev. Wright controversy, and most of the attention was focusing on the race issues, Obama gave a speech on economics in New York that totally blew me away, and turned me from "just" a supporter to an ardent supporter.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/...
Although I am now retired from law, I spent years as a lawyer, and am reasonably sophisticated on major issues. However, economics is not my natural forte. My eyes glaze over sometimes when people start swapping credit default stories and throwing tranches around, and I still have absolutely no idea how the hell a hedge fund works.
I had heard the "race" speech, and thought it was good -- maybe even great . But it was Obama's speech on economics that blew me away -- not because of the economics of it (although he was good), but on his ability to take these complex, specific issues, and weave them effortlessly into the tapestry of a broader history. At the time, some commentators complained that the first few minutes of his speech were too general and too professorial, but I was riveted by his ability to "see" that the exact same issues that we were grappling with today were inextricably woven into the fabric of our system, going back to the founding fathers, and the tension between Jefferson and Hamilton.
Obama gave a succinct and yet brilliant summary of the origins of our economic system going back to our nation's beginnings, and then effortlessly brought all these seemingly disparate threads together to explain our present situation:
In the more than two centuries since then, we have struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Hamilton and Jefferson – self-interest and community; markets and democracy; the concentration of wealth and power, and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every citizen. Throughout this saga, Americans have pursued their dreams within a free market that has been the engine of America's progress. It's a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and opportunity for generations of Americans. A market that has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery.
But the American experiment has worked in large part because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle – but rather to advance prosperity and liberty. As I said at NASDAQ last September: the core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well being of American business, its capital markets, and the American people are aligned.
Back in March, the economy had not yet collapsed, the stock market was not yet in free fall, and the media's focus was on Wright and wrong, not on economic issues, but looking back on Obama's economics speech now shows that -- just as he was on Iraq -- Obama was prescient in his analysis and his understanding. I believe that his prescience is not just a result of intellect or education or even judgment, but rather on his ability to see patterns and connect seemingly random "dots" that (for those with the ability to see) paint the whole picture for him long before those who are limited to linear (logical) thinking have been able to make the connections.
Years ago, in my youth, I was in love with a brilliant and talented musician (who unfortunately, as is often the case, died young). I was at the time awed by his seemingly mysterious ability to "see" things that most of us could not. He would make these connections between A and Z that, on first impression, made no sense to me. After reflection, I would slowly figure it out. It was only decades after his death that I understood that my right-brained musician friend was seeing patterns that were not yet clear to the logical, left-brained mind. He was "filling in the blanks" intuitively. (Malcolm Gladwell's book, "Blink" deals with these types of phenomena.)
The discoveries of quantum mechanics have nurtured interest in holistic theory, and interconnectedness is well-established and accepted on the quantum level. The problems have been in translating this understanding of patterns to macro systems. My own feeling (which I can't scientifically prove but I can directly experience) is that interconnectedness -- while mysterious and still scientifically unquantifiable -- is something that many of us directly experience and intuit, even if we cannot express it to the satisfaction of a still largely linear Western world that embraces atomistic rather than holistic thought.
How does quantum holistic theory apply to Obama's decision to reach out to everyone from McCain to Hillary? How does it apply to Obama's decision to leave Lieberman's fate up to the Democatic caucus, without signaling a desire for revenge or at least a stripping of Lieberman's power to affect future decisions?
I feel that Obama has seen, clearly and unequivocally, that all the cliches we have parroted for years are actually true and coming into fruition. "Our planet is in peril" is more than a CNN program slogan. "Our government is broken" is more than campaign rhetoric. "Our economy is in collapse" is not just Paulson's attempt to extort a blank check. A "flood of foreclosures" is not just a headline on the evening news. "Global climate change" is not just an environmentalists alarm cry.
All of these disasters are real. All are happening now. All at the same time. And it is cataclysmic. That means none of the old rules apply. "Out with the old, in with the new" presupposes that there is no connection between "them" and "us". Holistic theory tells us that "us" and "them" are only superficial distinctions. We are truly all parts of the whole. And that means that, no matter where we are, we are each affecting everything and everyone, no matter whether we are at the top or at the bottom, because ultimately, in a quantum holistic universe, top and bottom are not relevant constructs.
Using this type of perspective it becomes clear that we truly do not have time for partisanship, no matter how gratifying it may be to claim the mantle of "victory" or impose our progressive agenda on the "losers". That type of thinking doesn't get us out of this mess. Obama gets it. We cannot get out of this mess just by being a Democratic majority and imposing an agenda on a Republican minority. While wanting to see them "punished" for what "they" have done may be temporarily gratifying to our egos (we were "right" they were "wrong") that approach keeps us mired in "either/or" thinking and does nothing to help us stay afloat and navigate these truly treacherous waters. We're all in this boat together, and every single person is going to have to bail the boat out for any of us to remain afloat. If only the Democrats are bailing, we sink. If only the Republicans are bailing, we sink. We truly sink or remain afloat together, because we truly are all in the same boat.
Climate change is a global issue, not a Republican or Democratic one, not an American or Asian one. It doesn't matter any more whose stock market melted down first, or why. They are all interconnected and interdependent. It doesn't matter whose economy started the collapse. They are all falling -- not like dominoes, with a causal connectedness, but because they all share the same systems, and one economy cannot be healthy unless the heart of the whole economic system is healthy. And right now there is a systemic failure taking place before our very eyes. A failure so intertwined into every facet of our lives that only the blind are failing to see it.
Those of us who are still employed or who have some saved assets may not yet feel the full brunt of the collapse, but before long we will have a friend, or a relative, or a neighbor who will be unable to keep afloat. What do we do then? Do you think that the people losing their jobs, worried about their children, or desperate for medical care give a damn whether the person in charge of the such and such department is a former Clinton administration staffer or a former Republican aide? All they care about is whether we have anyone in a leadership position who can reorganize the entire system so that a new order emerges from the coming chaos.
Obama gets this. Why some people feel he should get brand new people who have never been to Washington to "fix" the system (when by definition they have no experience with it) makes no sense to me. Just because Holder was a Deputy AG under Clinton doesn't mean he can't and won't execute Obama's agenda. Clinton as Sec. of State has a Machiavellian brilliance to it -- it takes her out of her own political theater and uses her considerable talents to enunciate and execute Obama's foreign policy, not her own. If Brent Scowcraft once advised Bush Sr., does that mean he should never advise Obama? Those who argue that the lines must be kept inviolate don't understand that it is not an either/or universe. Obama gets it. He intuitively goes beyond such illusory distinctions. Thus, he said once that it wasn't about choosing "either smaller government or bigger government" but rather finding a way to "better government". That's what he's trying to do.
I feel Obama understands that he is inheriting a system that is in collapse and chaos, and that -- as anyone who studies chaos theory understands -- it is from chaos that a new order emerges. I don't feel Obama is trying to "fix" the failing system. He is not looking for people who have a particular agenda or policy positions to help him craft his positions. He is looking for the very best, most competent, most knowledgeable people who understand the failing system from the inside, so that he himself will have the best possible insider's knowledge of the guts of the system in order to transform it -- which is not the same as "fixing" it. It doesn't mean he is going to recreate the same system. It means he's going to know exactly what the resources are, so that when he makes changes he knows how and where to apply the least amount of energy to get the biggest response.
The image or metaphor I feel we need to keep in mind is of the Titanic, right before she hit the iceberg. The previous captain's course was arrogantly full speed ahead with no heed to icebergs or mortal dangers. We are bringing Obama -- a new captain -- in just before the iceberg. (I posit before the iceberg because once we hit then all is truly lost, and I don't think we're there yet.) He sees the iceberg, he knows he needs to change course, but he's never captained this ship before, and turning an ocean liner is an incredibly complex and difficult course, that takes a coordinated and expert effort from all hands. He trusts his vision of the need for a course correction, but he needs all hands to implement his orders and accomplish the changed mission. Who do we think he should put in the subordinate officer's positions? People who have theoretical knowledge of ships and sailing but have never sailed -- or the people who intimately know every nut and bolt on the ship of state? People who know exactly where the pressure points are, how much can be asked of whom, and what sort of real-world response can be expected? Do you think the captain who inherits a ship in a storm cares whether its crewmembers are Republicans or Democrats? Should that outweigh whether they have intimate experience of every part of the vessel he has been given to command at the very moment of its greatest peril?
Obama is unlike any other politician in my lifetime, in that he has the ability to see holistically, and to trust his instincts even when everyone around him says otherwise. We elected him primarily for that vision -- not for his experience or because he was more ideologically pure than other candidates.
At this point, Obama's entire focus and attention is in creating a completely new framework out of a collapsing order. He's doing it because he sees the coming chaos, and also sees the possibilities for a totally new structure within the apparent chaos -- a new structure whose exact dimensions can be guessed at, but not precisely known. What he is engaged in is an act of creation, not an "ordinary" act of political transition. There is no guarantee that he will succeed, because truly the scope and breadth of the ongoing collapse are staggering. But unless we feel that we can "see" pattern and connections better than he can, let's stop playing the same old blame games and start giving the coming process of transformation our support and our own service, in whatever way we can.
This doesn't mean we can't dissent. If we see him appointing people based on cronyism or personal loyalty or ideological purity rather than excellence and competence, then for sure we should voice our dissent. But let's start by "seeing", like Obama, beyond labels, beyond partisanship, beyond political agenda. Let's start thinking in terms of service to the community, in terms of becoming our brother's keepers and our sister's keepers, because, unquestionably, the time ahead will be fraught with difficulties. The stakes are too high to keep engaging in all the things we so deplored when others did them -- the partisanship, the "to the victor belongs the spoils" mentality, the divisiveness, the rancor, the lack of compassion and understanding.
We are all in this together, for better or for worse. So let's take our direction from the captain we just selected, and all start rowing in the same direction, in the hope that Captain Obama can steer clear of the catastrophe ahead and create a new framework for governance.