U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. Although the tumor was reportedly in the early stages, pancreatic cancer is one of the worst in terms of survival. Justice Ginsburg had previously survived colon cancer more than 10 years ago.
Best wishes for a full recovery to her. Still, one cannot avoid thinking that this may be President Obama's first Supreme Court appointment. There are so many good choices that a Democratic president has, and I have not the slightest qualm that he will make an excellent choice.
It also points up one of the anxieties of the last eight years -- that george bush would get the opportunity to appoint more judges. If Justice Ginsburg's illness had occurred last year, he might have completely shifted the balance of the court for another generation. As it is, Obama can only replace one liberal with another -- but someone younger.
Ralph
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Repudiation count
I hope someone is keeping a tally on the number of george bush's actions that Obama's team is repudiating and overturning. Two more caught my eye today:
Interior Secretary Salazar cancelled drilling and mining rights that bush had given last minute approval for on the edge of several national parks and environmentally sensitive areas.
It was announced today that the government will no longer call it "the war on terror." Not only was it a misnomer -- terror is a tactic, not a country -- but it led to faulty thinking about the problem. As long as you simply think of "terror" as an evil loose in the world, you do not think about what is the cause behind people using this tactic.
As a tactic, it is often highly effective -- as in 9/11 when relatively little outlay by the perpetrators caused such devastation. But we also need to realize that terrorist tactics are often the only recourse to those without resources to protect themselves against powerful oppressors -- like throwing stones at soldiers with guns. There are many examples of that in the Middle East conflicts. Understanding the causes is not the same as excusing the tactics; but it may be part of the solution.
When Rush and his crowd stary braying that Obama is giving up on the war on terror, I hope plenty of defenders will stand up and say "Bullshit!! We're not going to continue to be stupid and ignorant, just because you are and have a big microphone."
Ralph
Interior Secretary Salazar cancelled drilling and mining rights that bush had given last minute approval for on the edge of several national parks and environmentally sensitive areas.
It was announced today that the government will no longer call it "the war on terror." Not only was it a misnomer -- terror is a tactic, not a country -- but it led to faulty thinking about the problem. As long as you simply think of "terror" as an evil loose in the world, you do not think about what is the cause behind people using this tactic.
As a tactic, it is often highly effective -- as in 9/11 when relatively little outlay by the perpetrators caused such devastation. But we also need to realize that terrorist tactics are often the only recourse to those without resources to protect themselves against powerful oppressors -- like throwing stones at soldiers with guns. There are many examples of that in the Middle East conflicts. Understanding the causes is not the same as excusing the tactics; but it may be part of the solution.
When Rush and his crowd stary braying that Obama is giving up on the war on terror, I hope plenty of defenders will stand up and say "Bullshit!! We're not going to continue to be stupid and ignorant, just because you are and have a big microphone."
Ralph
Obama takes off the gloves
President Obama deserves much credit for trying to make the eonomic recovery bill a bipartisan effort. But his frustration with Republicans -- I'd even say anger -- is showing. Today he let loose a bit:
Now, I read the other day that critics of this plan ridiculed our notion that we should use part of the money to modernize the entire fleet of federal vehicles to take advantage of state of the art fuel efficiency. This is what they call pork. You know the truth. It will not only save the government significant money over time, it will not only create manufacturing jobs for folks who are making these cars, it will set a standard for private industry to match. And so when you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself -- are these folks serious? Is it any wonder that we haven't had a real energy policy in this country?For the last few years, I've talked about these issues with Americans from one end of this country to another. And Washington may not be ready to get serious about energy independence, but I am. And so are you. And so are the American people.
. . . .
In the last few days, we've seen proposals arise from some in Congress that you may not have read but you'd be very familiar with because you've been hearing them for the last 10 years, maybe longer. They're rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems; that government doesn't have a role to play; that half-measures and tinkering are somehow enough; that we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges -- the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.So let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They've taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, and they've brought our economy to a halt. And that's precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment. And now is the time to move forward, not back. Now is the time for action.
Bravo !!!
From The Washington Post:
The Action Americans Need
The Action Americans Need
By Barack Obama
Thursday, February 5, 2009; A17
By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.
What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.
. . .
In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.
I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.
. . .
These are the actions Americans expect us to take without delay. They're patient enough to know that our economic recovery will be measured in years, not months. But they have no patience for the same old partisan gridlock that stands in the way of action while our economy continues to slide.
So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.
The writer is president of the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174_pf.html
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Events of the day
1. President Obama signed into law the reauthorization of the SCHIP bill (State Children's Health Insurance Program), saying that "This is a down payment on my promise to cover every American. . . . In a decent society, there are certain obligations that are not subject to tradeoffs or negotiation - health care for our children is one of those obligations."
George Bush had twice vetoed a similar bill. Another sharp repudiation.
2. Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. He had seemed the ideal choice: author of a book on health care policy and former Senate majority leader, hence both the knowledge and the know-how to get legislation passed.
His tax problems were more troubling than they first seemed, because it showed him as benefiting from expensive perks (free car and driver, worth about $250,000 over several years) from a wealthy friend and associate. Nothing illegal about it, but it is taxable -- and Daschle didn't report it.
Even more troubling, however, is the wealth accumulated since he was in the Senate, which came his way in part as a result of his influence in the health care industry. Again, he didn't do anything illegal, but it raises concerns about future influence from these associates if he were Sec of HHS. And it all goes against Obama's strict "no lobbyists" in his adminsitration. Daschle was not a registered lobbyist, but he seems to have been in everything but name.
A good man who would have been good for the job -- but too much baggage.
3. The Democrats and Obama are having a hard time getting 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican filibuster on the economic recovery bill. Now Commerce Secretary nominee, Republican senator Judd Gregg, has said that, although he supports Obama's plan and would otherwise vote for it, he will abstain from voting on the measure while his nomination is under consideration. His would have been an important vote, and he wants to make sure there's no question about his nomination being misperceived as a quid pro quo.
4. Report in the New York Times gives pretty good evidence that someone in Gov. Paterson's office improperly leaked out rumors from Caroline Kennedy's vetting questionnaire to discredit her. Both the "tax problem" and the "nanny problem" that were floated in the news turned out to be much ado about not much. In 1994, she owed a few hundred dollars on her tax bill; and a nanny, who had worked for her in the 1980's, had an expired visa. Both issues were cleared up more than a decade ago. She had disclosed them both in her vetting questionnaire, and the Paterson team did not consider them problems--but apparently leaked them later to embarrass and discredit her.
Why they would be leaked to the press in the final days, along with the other conflicting stories of what happened, remains a mystery. Pretty sleazy political way to treat a respected woman who seems very decent, intelligent, and dedicated to public service.
5. Dick Cheney has not gone quietly into retirement. In an interview with Politico yesterday, he said there is a 'high probability' that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years and that he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed. He also accused the Obama administration of wanting to protect the rights of terrorists more than they want to protect Americans.
He had his turn for 8 years. He should just shut up. At least george bush has that decency.
6. Bill Kristol (one of my least favorite journalists) is urging the GOP to defeat Obama's stimulus bill in order to make it easier to defeat his health care legislation later.
I suggest that Dick Cheney take Bill Kristol hunting.
Ralph
George Bush had twice vetoed a similar bill. Another sharp repudiation.
2. Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. He had seemed the ideal choice: author of a book on health care policy and former Senate majority leader, hence both the knowledge and the know-how to get legislation passed.
His tax problems were more troubling than they first seemed, because it showed him as benefiting from expensive perks (free car and driver, worth about $250,000 over several years) from a wealthy friend and associate. Nothing illegal about it, but it is taxable -- and Daschle didn't report it.
Even more troubling, however, is the wealth accumulated since he was in the Senate, which came his way in part as a result of his influence in the health care industry. Again, he didn't do anything illegal, but it raises concerns about future influence from these associates if he were Sec of HHS. And it all goes against Obama's strict "no lobbyists" in his adminsitration. Daschle was not a registered lobbyist, but he seems to have been in everything but name.
A good man who would have been good for the job -- but too much baggage.
3. The Democrats and Obama are having a hard time getting 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican filibuster on the economic recovery bill. Now Commerce Secretary nominee, Republican senator Judd Gregg, has said that, although he supports Obama's plan and would otherwise vote for it, he will abstain from voting on the measure while his nomination is under consideration. His would have been an important vote, and he wants to make sure there's no question about his nomination being misperceived as a quid pro quo.
4. Report in the New York Times gives pretty good evidence that someone in Gov. Paterson's office improperly leaked out rumors from Caroline Kennedy's vetting questionnaire to discredit her. Both the "tax problem" and the "nanny problem" that were floated in the news turned out to be much ado about not much. In 1994, she owed a few hundred dollars on her tax bill; and a nanny, who had worked for her in the 1980's, had an expired visa. Both issues were cleared up more than a decade ago. She had disclosed them both in her vetting questionnaire, and the Paterson team did not consider them problems--but apparently leaked them later to embarrass and discredit her.
Why they would be leaked to the press in the final days, along with the other conflicting stories of what happened, remains a mystery. Pretty sleazy political way to treat a respected woman who seems very decent, intelligent, and dedicated to public service.
5. Dick Cheney has not gone quietly into retirement. In an interview with Politico yesterday, he said there is a 'high probability' that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years and that he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed. He also accused the Obama administration of wanting to protect the rights of terrorists more than they want to protect Americans.
He had his turn for 8 years. He should just shut up. At least george bush has that decency.
6. Bill Kristol (one of my least favorite journalists) is urging the GOP to defeat Obama's stimulus bill in order to make it easier to defeat his health care legislation later.
I suggest that Dick Cheney take Bill Kristol hunting.
Ralph
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Repudiation of bush #27
Actually, I've lost count of the number of times that bush and his administration have already been repudiated. Mostly it has come from the new Obama administration, but today we learned of one that was initiated by the bush Justice Department itself -- but only after the Alberto Gonzales partisan political crowd left in disgrace.
As reported on NPR, Leslie Hagen was hired in 2006 for a job in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, where she was the liaison between the main Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys' committee on Native American affairs. She has been described by the committee chairman as "the best qualified person in the nation to fill that job." Hagen's performance evaluations had the highest possible ratings — "outstanding" in each of five categories.
As reported on NPR, Leslie Hagen was hired in 2006 for a job in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, where she was the liaison between the main Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys' committee on Native American affairs. She has been described by the committee chairman as "the best qualified person in the nation to fill that job." Hagen's performance evaluations had the highest possible ratings — "outstanding" in each of five categories.
The job had to be renewed each year. After the first year, Hagen was surprised to hear that she would have to move on. It seems that Monica Goodling (senior counsel to Gonzales) had heard a rumor that Hagen was gay and removed her from the job, even though discrimination based on sexual orientation is against the deparment's rules. Not content with removing her from that job, Goodling also blocked her from getting any other job in the Justice Department.
Remember Goodling from the Congressional hearings on politicization of the Justice Department? She admitted under oath that she had "crossed the line" in her hiring proceedures, and she resigned. Evidence showed that she had packed the department's career positions with Pat Robertson's Liberty Law School grads, and that new graduates from Yale and Harvard Law Schools were routinely passed over even for interviews.
Hagen's old job came open again last year. After a national search and several rounds of interviews, Hagen was given her old job back. Only this time, it is a permanent job that won't be subject to renewal each year.
This violation was so blatant, and garned such publicity during the hearings, that even the Republicans had to correct it -- well, not exactly. They didn't reinstate her but allowed her to compete again for the job. As shocking as such discrimination seems today, this is what gay people faced routinely until very recently. And in many states, it is still perfectly legal to do so.
Cleaning up the mess has only just begun. But it has begun. At last.
Ralph
The return of Justice
Eric Holder was sworn in as Attorney General and promised a clean break with policies of the Bush adminsitration, saying that there will be no place for political favoritism in the Department of Justice.
From the HuffingtonPost:
"I am determined to ensure that this shall be a new day for the dedicated career professionals that I am so honored to call my colleagues," Holder told various employees and dignitaries gathered for the ceremony. He said he was committed to remaking the department "into what it once was and what is always should be."
Hundreds of department employees packed the hallways and stairways to welcome Holder. To loud cheers and applause, he pledged to remake the department by "taking it back to what it once was and always has to be." . . .For starters, the new attorney general will learn the secrets of the Office of Legal Counsel, whose lawyers justified the use of controversial interrogation tactics and even declined to provide Bush administration documents to internal Justice Department investigators.
Holder also will play a major role in the future of terrorism detainees and further decisions about closing Guantanamo. Another decision will be whether to reverse bush's executive privilege order to prevent Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Josh Bolton from testifying about the attorney firings and the Plame outing.
Holder as AG is the key to whether the bush crowd is simply allowed to fade into history or whether we will investigate and hold them accountable. Surely policies will change, but will he say "let's look to the future, not the past" or will he agree with many who insist that the Constitution must be cleansed and restored by at the very least getting at the whole truth of how it was tarnished.
Ralph
The Gregg deal
Another day gone by, the appointment of Senator Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary almost certain, and still no one has said why he is qualified in that particular department. It's as if they don't feel a case needs to be made.
Is it pure politics, then? Put another Republican in the cabinet, hope the Democratic governor of New Hampshire will appoint a Democrat to fill the seat, thus making the 60 vote supermajority to thwart Republican fillibusters?
But Gregg has said that he will take the job only if it does not result in a change in the makeup of the Senate, and the governor is rumored to be ready to appoint a moderate Republican.
But here's the other political consideration. Gregg is a moderate Republican who is said to be an Obama supporter. And putting a Republican at Commerce, as part of the team that deals with the economic crisis, will make it harder for Republicans to demonize Obama's recovery plan.
OK, but that's still politics. Any other qualfications? Gregg has been New Hampshire governor, served in the House and for 16 years in the Senate. He is a respected behind the scenes adviser to Republican leaders, is known as a fiscal conservative, and is former Chairman of the Budget Committee. He has reportedly called Obama's stimulus plan presentation a tour de force and remarked on his comprehensive understanding of the issues.
All in all, maybe a good choice. At least we're no worse off, and no one has suggested that Gregg is not qualified. Even if it's more politics than substantive qualifications, I suppose we could allow Obama one of those in a mostly superb cabinet. After all, it's not like bush's fox-guarding-the-henhouse type of appointment.
Ralph
Is it pure politics, then? Put another Republican in the cabinet, hope the Democratic governor of New Hampshire will appoint a Democrat to fill the seat, thus making the 60 vote supermajority to thwart Republican fillibusters?
But Gregg has said that he will take the job only if it does not result in a change in the makeup of the Senate, and the governor is rumored to be ready to appoint a moderate Republican.
But here's the other political consideration. Gregg is a moderate Republican who is said to be an Obama supporter. And putting a Republican at Commerce, as part of the team that deals with the economic crisis, will make it harder for Republicans to demonize Obama's recovery plan.
OK, but that's still politics. Any other qualfications? Gregg has been New Hampshire governor, served in the House and for 16 years in the Senate. He is a respected behind the scenes adviser to Republican leaders, is known as a fiscal conservative, and is former Chairman of the Budget Committee. He has reportedly called Obama's stimulus plan presentation a tour de force and remarked on his comprehensive understanding of the issues.
All in all, maybe a good choice. At least we're no worse off, and no one has suggested that Gregg is not qualified. Even if it's more politics than substantive qualifications, I suppose we could allow Obama one of those in a mostly superb cabinet. After all, it's not like bush's fox-guarding-the-henhouse type of appointment.
Ralph
Monday, February 2, 2009
Spending debate
On This Week With George Stephanopolis, Republican Senator Jim DeMint trotted out the Republican talking point, complaining about the investment spending in the stimulus package, saying that this is not stimulus but just more long term government spending. And, of course, he said we should be doing tax cuts instead.
Barney Frank, Chair of the House Banking and Finance Committee, shot back at him a response that has been largely missing in the debate: spending on the Iraq war.
Good for Barney. It's time someone put Iraq on the table when the Repubs complain about spending and what we can't afford.
And today, the fight is taken up in the Senate. Too bad it's going to be an ugly fight instead of a colleagial debate over genuine policy differences. But that's the game the Republicans seem determined to play.
Ralph
Barney Frank, Chair of the House Banking and Finance Committee, shot back at him a response that has been largely missing in the debate: spending on the Iraq war.
DeMint: It's the largest spending bill in history and we're trying to call it a stimulus.
Frank: The largest spending bill in history is going to turn out to be the one in Iraq. If we're going to talk about spending, I have a problem when we leave out that extraordinary expensive, damaging war in Iraq, which has caused much more harm than good in my judgment.
I don't understand from my conservative friends: building a road, building a school, helping to get health care, that's wasteful spending. But that war in Iraq, that's going to cost us over a trillion dollars, yeah, I wish we hadn't done that; we would have been in a lot better shape fiscally. . .
That's the problem. . . . we look at spending and say don't spend on highways or health care. Let's build weapons to defeat the Soviet Union when we don't need them. Let's have hundreds of billions of dollars going to the military without a check. Unless everything is on the table, then you are going to have a disproportionate hit in some places.
Good for Barney. It's time someone put Iraq on the table when the Repubs complain about spending and what we can't afford.
And today, the fight is taken up in the Senate. Too bad it's going to be an ugly fight instead of a colleagial debate over genuine policy differences. But that's the game the Republicans seem determined to play.
Ralph
Sunday, February 1, 2009
NH Senate replacement
What seemed like a brilliant coup a day ago -- nominating Judd Gregg, Republican senator from N.H. as Commerce Secretary, expecting the Democratic governor to replace him with a Democrat, thus giving the Democrats the 60 vote margin -- now seems in doubt.
It's been reported by The Hill that Gregg will take the job only if he is replaced by a Republican. But Nate Silver says that wouldn't necessarily be so bad. A leading candidate is former State Representative Liz Hager, who is described as a Rockefeller Republican moderate who endorsed Barack Obama for president, is pro-choice and pro-government. Although she would caucus with the Republicans, she might very well vote with the Democrats on some key issues. Her voting pattern would likely be to the left of some conservative Democrats.
So, at worst, it would replace a conservative Republican with a much less conservative one.
This would have the added benefit of strengthening the moderate Republican New Englanders, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow, as well as sometimes providing the 60th vote without the Republicans being able to complain of a monolithic super-majority shutting them out.
Still, however, not one word about Gregg's qualifications to be Commerce Secretary.
Ralph
It's been reported by The Hill that Gregg will take the job only if he is replaced by a Republican. But Nate Silver says that wouldn't necessarily be so bad. A leading candidate is former State Representative Liz Hager, who is described as a Rockefeller Republican moderate who endorsed Barack Obama for president, is pro-choice and pro-government. Although she would caucus with the Republicans, she might very well vote with the Democrats on some key issues. Her voting pattern would likely be to the left of some conservative Democrats.
So, at worst, it would replace a conservative Republican with a much less conservative one.
This would have the added benefit of strengthening the moderate Republican New Englanders, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow, as well as sometimes providing the 60th vote without the Republicans being able to complain of a monolithic super-majority shutting them out.
Still, however, not one word about Gregg's qualifications to be Commerce Secretary.
Ralph
HolyJoe -- bad dog, bad dog.
In response to Obama kindness and political smarts in allowing HolyJoe to retain his committee chairmanship, he seemed to be trying to redeem himself with praise for Obama's foreign policy smarts, which he had snidely criticized during the campaign.
But I'm afraid HolyJoe is still a jerk. Read this:
But I'm afraid HolyJoe is still a jerk. Read this:
At last night’s black-tie dinner at Washington’s Alfalfa Club, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) couldn’t resist cracking a joke about torture. Politico’s Mike Allen reports:More from Senator Lieberman: ‘We had hoped Vice President Cheney would be here tonight. I hope it’s not his back injury that’s keeping him away. Apparently, he hurt it moving some things out of his office. Personally, I had no idea that waterboards were so heavy.
Last year, Lieberman, who has voted against banning waterboarding, “reluctantly acknowledged” that he doesn’t believe that waterboarding is torture. “It is not like putting burning coals on people’s bodies. The person is in no real danger. The impact is psychological,” he said.
What pathetic lack of understanding and callous disregard of human suffering. It's not torture because it's psychological?
Maybe it plays differently when you're actually at one of these dinners where politicians try to get a laugh by making fun of serious policy issues (like bush pretending to look under the table for WMD), but I thought this was not only in bad taste but makes HolyJoe sound like the jerk that I thought he was.
Ralph
Technical note
Anyone who has trouble posting a comment on this blog, please email me at rroughton@bellsouth.net and let me know that it's happening again. There are some inner gremlins that keep changing the "who may comment" setting to "members only" every time I change it back to "anyone."
Ralph
Ralph
bush's preschool diplomacy
Emory Professor of Psychology and political analyst Drew Westen has a very interesting article on HuffingtonPost today about how different Obama's mental function is from that of george bush. He's referring specifically to the capacity to put yourself in the other person's shoes, to recognize that the other person has a different mind and different desires than your own.
This is an essential capacity in negotiating with opposing nations and their leaders. Obama has it; george bush doesn't. It's not just Obama's experience as a community organizer; it's the way his mind works in relation to other people that made him an effective community organizer. Bush, in contrast, saw everything only from his own perspective: "You're either with us or you're against us." "You either support our actions or you hate democracy."
As Drew explains, it's a develomental step that
Somehow we knew that Obama's supposed "lack of experience" was trumped by something that would make him a better president. We talked about his intelligence, his judgment, his people skills. Now Drew has made it a little clearer. One of his greatest strengths is this capacity to imagine the other person's perspective -- coupled with other qualities of emotional maturity -- that make him such a different sort of human being and will make him a much different president. Of all his formidable assets as a leader, I think the most important one is his psychological maturity and his seeming lack of need to use the presidency to work out his inner demons and conflicts.
To be clear, this is not the same thing as being weak or easily manipulated. It means recognizing that others can be understood and recognized without necessarily agreeing with their position. It's more than just treating others with respect; it's recognizing their separate existence. Not recognizing the other's separateness and rights is demeaning and creates resentment.
Drew's article can be read in full at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obamas-impressive-beginni_b_162164.html
Ralph
This is an essential capacity in negotiating with opposing nations and their leaders. Obama has it; george bush doesn't. It's not just Obama's experience as a community organizer; it's the way his mind works in relation to other people that made him an effective community organizer. Bush, in contrast, saw everything only from his own perspective: "You're either with us or you're against us." "You either support our actions or you hate democracy."
As Drew explains, it's a develomental step that
begins in preschool but takes years to develop: the capacity to take the perspective of the other -- to imagine, reflect on, and respond in accordance with inferences about what the other person sees, thinks, and feels. . . . children's growing awareness that other people have mental states and that the contents of other people's minds are not necessarily the same as their own. . . . in adults, all of these phenomena are associated with more secure and mature relationships.Another aspect of this is the capacity to imagine how one's words might be heard by the other. In the runup to the Iraq war:
A reporter asked Bush whether the Turks were on board, to which he curtly replied, "The Turks know what we expect of them" -- as if they were his errant teenage children or our unruly U.S. colony. It hadn't occurred to him that he had just immensely complicated the task of any Turkish leader who had any inclination to join his "coalition of the willing," not only because Turkey has a large Muslim population but also because Turkey elects its leaders, and any politician who appears to be taking his orders from Washington is not going to be in power for long. What was so striking was that Bush just didn't seem to understand -- or to care -- how his comments were heard.
This wasn't just swaggering cowboy diplomacy. It was preschool diplomacy, the kind of "I want it, so you give it to me" diplomacy that children practice before they understand that other kids have different feelings than they do or may want to play with the same toy, and that they have to negotiate for what they want when faced with conflicting intentions, desires, or understandings.
Somehow we knew that Obama's supposed "lack of experience" was trumped by something that would make him a better president. We talked about his intelligence, his judgment, his people skills. Now Drew has made it a little clearer. One of his greatest strengths is this capacity to imagine the other person's perspective -- coupled with other qualities of emotional maturity -- that make him such a different sort of human being and will make him a much different president. Of all his formidable assets as a leader, I think the most important one is his psychological maturity and his seeming lack of need to use the presidency to work out his inner demons and conflicts.
To be clear, this is not the same thing as being weak or easily manipulated. It means recognizing that others can be understood and recognized without necessarily agreeing with their position. It's more than just treating others with respect; it's recognizing their separate existence. Not recognizing the other's separateness and rights is demeaning and creates resentment.
Drew's article can be read in full at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obamas-impressive-beginni_b_162164.html
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
