There is a repeating complaint against the Obama campaign - that it isn’t feisty enough, or hard enough, or angry enough. The complaint asserts that Sen. Obama is nieve and deluded because he thinks he can negotiate with the Republicans and lobbyists, etc.
But this argument, while superficially sound, is fundamentally flawed.
For almost two decades now, the parties have be come increasingly combative and increasingly less able to resolve political and social differences. History shows that the more combative our politics become, the less satisfactory the outcome.
Recently, pre-2006, the Republicans asserted that the way to govern was by overpowering their opposition. No bills were introduced until and unless the majority of the majority had pre-approved them. All opposition was demonized. And the resulting legislation was NOT satisfactory even to the majority of their constituents, let alone those of their Democratic opponents. Hence the growing dissatisfaction in the Republican ranks.
But let’s step back to the Clinton era – he did confront the Republican party and even won a few, but left a legacy of opposition bitterness in his wake. Even prior to Clinton, in the days of the Democrat majority, overpowering the opposition rarely resulted in long-term gain or majority constituency satisfaction. That fact is why, over the decades the US legislative and Executive branches evolved into a pattern of resolution by compromise. Not that the power dynamic was absent, just that the most effective legislators learned to always leave something for the opposition.
Slash and burn approaches to governing only leaves smoking ground in it’s wake… as a quick glance at our current condition will evidence. Winning by conflict leaves anger in the losers. That is fine if you move on and never have to deal with them again, but is very dangerous if you are locked into a long-term relationship. It’s like winning an argument with your spouse by punching him/her in the mouth. It might seem to end the discussion at that moment, but don’t fall asleep.
As one who has made my living in “confrontation” and “problem resolution”, I can tell you from personal experience that if you want a productive long-term relationship in an environment where power isn’t forever fixed, you have to engage in negotiation, conciliation and good old horse trading give and take. And always keep in mind that there will come a day when you will be on the receiving end.
And even more importantly than the simple dynamics and psychology of successful problem resolution, is another reality which is too often forgotten. Republicans and Democrats are not enemies, they are our neighbors and friends. They are our bosses and employees. They are our family. Bitter as the last years have been, demonizing each other will not help in governance, resolve longstanding problems or fix our politics.
I am not a fool, and I know and have experienced a lot of “reality” in this country, more than a lot of folks. And I will admit that when I became an adult, my first and most urgent impulse was to fight and defeat those who oppressed me and mine. I was angry, confrontational and pretty good at it. But experience forced me to understand that I had to make a choice, I could fight the good fight and win when I was strong – lose when I wasn’t, or I could resolve the problem. Effective problem resolution requires that you forego your ego, bite your tongue and control your impulse. It's not that it's never appropriate to fight, sometimes a battle is the only way to resolve an issue, but that should be the exception rather than the rule. And even in those fights the winner should be magnanimous and humble in victory.
A quick anecdote… years ago I was hired to lead a union that had had to swallow a bad contract. In part because they had pissed off some other unions whose support they needed to win a strike. My folks felt betrayed. They were bitter, angry and ready for a fight – with the other unions. But they couldn’t get the contract they needed without those unions. The other unions were angry with our union too, because they felt unfairly blamed for the contract loss. I had to get a new contract, that was my charge. So, I went, hat in hand to the other union leaders and without begging or pleading, took the blame for the problem – a problem that I had no part in creating. They cussed me out (to put it mildly) but by pocketing my ego, I was able to win their support – and get their active help in getting my union members a better contract. I didn’t feel like I was wrong and I shared some of the anger of my members, but my job was not to vindicate my personal anger, it was to resolve the problems and get my folks the wages and benefits they needed. I could have engaged in a prolonged confrontation – a fight – or I could resolve the problem. I chose to resolve the problem.
The thing that we must remember is that we all live here and we all have our own perspectives and priorities. We can share this land, and find a way that we can all live quality lives, or we can fight it out. We tried fighting it out – it was called a Civil War and hundreds of thousands died.
We have deep disagreements and divisions in this country, over many, many issues. We can take to the mattresses and win by confrontation, power and attrition, and live in the ashes of the country we are trying to save. Or we can find a way to re-engage with each other, build the needed coalitions around acceptable resolutions to tough problems and get on with it. Engaging in the American version of tribal warfare is what the Republicans tried, they succeeded for a little while but look at the price the country has paid.
In problem resolution, the real pragmatism is not the ability to overpower or out fight your opponent, it is the ability to swallow your anger, holster your pistol and out think and out strategize your enemy. The battle is won in the strategy and the ability to adjust quickly and effectively to changing circumstances, not in the trenches. It is won in the ability to honestly and effectively perceive and analyze complex and fast changing conditions, demands, resources - and meeting them with flexibility and adaptability, not in stocking up guns and bullets. And most importantly, it is won if recruiting and retaining the maximum number of allies and supporters. Obama is the real pragmatist, in legislation, the battle is won by accruing the votes you need to win, not in shining your sword.
One other quick point… the complaint that any politician doesn’t have “substantive” plans and/or policies is bogus. As any general will tell you, plans are good only until the first shot is fired. All of the plans and platforms in the world will not give you the America you want, because our environment is fluid not static. Conditions change and resources change and attitudes change. A good leader needs a strategic vision, a reliable methodology to approach issue analysis and resolution, good information and maximum flexibility. S/he needs to be able to think on the fly in a quickly changing environment and under stress (which is why Bill Clinton was a successful President). In the post-Bush era, the next American leader will need that, in spades!