Leadership: or, Obama threw the deck, and all the cards in it, away

That was what was crucial. He handed the race "card" to whites and pointed out we're all actually getting screwed by the house (it's a stretch of a metaphor, sure, but I never liked the "card" terminology to begin with). He could have simply rejected Wright, like he did Farrakhan, and probably shoved a contentious problem under the rug. He could have defensively defended Wright and "played the race card" ("no white person can understand what a black American faces, blah blah blah"), and lost the nomination (or certainly at least the GE). But he didn't. He rose to the occasion by calling on us to rise to the occasion.

This, for those of you who haven't seen it before (which is most of us), is leadership. This isn't politics. He didn't waffle. He's right: America needs absolutely to have a conversation about race, and he was clear that the way Wright was talking isn't the way to have that conversation. But he's also clear that Wright is 100% right that the conversation needs to happen and we aren't doing it. And I admire that he won't throw Wright under the bus for his flaws; I have racist friends and family members and I can't disown them for that, either. He rose to the occasion by calling on us to rise to the occasion.

I underestimated Obama because frankly I mistook his campaign until fairly recently. I was excited about him because he was the most credible proponent of both transparency in government and sanity in foreign policy (Edwards was stronger in the first part and Richardson stronger in the second part; his policies capture some of both and since he remained in the race I hopped on board). I thought the participatory campaign style was just that: a campaign strategy that was finally going to be able to catch up with the ground game. Lately I've started to think I mistook the strength there, and this speech sold the deal for me: this is a governing strategy. This is the "we". Barack Obama can no more heal the racial divide in this country than he can walk on water, what he can do, is doing, and will continue to do is provide leadership for Americans to come together and do the work we've been avoiding for generations to solve it ourselves.

A President, particularly in times like these, needs to be a leader. Not a Chief Operating Officer. Not a manager. Not someone who thinks he or she has the right answers and can pull enough strings and twist enough arms to get most of those answers enacted. A President's job description is actually pretty simple: take ultimate responsibility for command of the military, address Congress on the state of the Union, and be a moral, ethical, and intellectual leader of the American people. I underestimated Obama because I thought all that mattered was that he would change a lot of the more pernicious misadministration that is rife in the Government. This is bigger than that. This is our republic, and he's going to expect us to work to keep it.

When was the last time a leader called on us to sacrifice and work for something? JFK? What the hell happened? Did politicians decide that people wanted to sit at home and watch TV every night and couldn't be bothered to do anything? No wonder people got turned off of politics: our alleged "leaders" have told us for a generation to stay on the couch and let the experts handle things. "Want to deal with the racial divide in this country?" they said. "I'll appoint a commission to find the root causes and recommend changes." Wrong answer. Obama just got to the heart of the matter: "Want to deal with the racial divide in this country? Talk to each other and find some common ground people can work on." That's citizenship, something you don't hear much about anymore. This is our country, and it's our problem, and politicians couldn't fix it even if they wanted to. Even the best leaders can only point the way and hopefully allocate some resources to make it possible.

I learned about leadership in the Marines as an NCO. I'm very grateful I didn't learn about it in the poisonous corporate world I went to after, or in academia. A leader can set goals and allocate resources, but a leader (an effective one, at least) cannot tell those he is leading how to do their jobs. If I tell one of my lance corporals to go take a hill, I can't tell him how to do it because he'll be the one there, and he'll have to make that decision. That's a lesson too much of the corporate world missed out on. If one of my lance corporals makes a mistake, as hard as it is (and it's the hardest leadership challenge I ever faced) I have to let him make it, because I can't second-guess the people I work for ("leading", in the Marines at least, is synonymous with "working for"). It's trust. It's trust that the people "under" you are worthy of your respect and can handle their responsibilities. And sometimes they fail, just like sometimes you fail, and your leaders don't throw you under the bus when you do, so you have to accept when those you lead fail also (though you can make sure they learn from it).

Anyways, the "card" is now in the hands of people who are angry at or hurt by what Wright said. Come out and talk to people about why you are angry, why you are hurt, what you would like to see done differently. I'll listen, at least; I'm sure others will too. But this needs to be a dialog, not a rant: are you willing to listen to where pastors like Wright are coming from, and on what the anger and paranoia that fueled Wright's hurtful and divisive remarks are based?

I'm clearing my ignore list, as of now, because not listening is the biggest part of the problem here. Anybody who wants to talk with me about Wright in this thread, or about racial issues in America and the world in general, is welcome and will be heard; just try to listen in return.

is the antipathy his pastor expressed for all white people, not just those who oppressed him. You seem to think we have a problem ... wrong ... he does.

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with being upset about what Wright said. I think he's particularly wrong about the extent to which poor white people are victimized by the system as well. And as a person of mixed race my feelings about racial issues are particularly confused, personally :)

I'm cool w/the fact that I come from a tribal culture and refrain from interacting w/those who understand me best these days because ... they're just too rigid. But that's their problem, not mine ... I'll walk by smiling and they'll look, well, tense.

not one problem but a whole myriad of problems. Many of which stem from the bunch sitting in the seats of government. Look around and in the mirror. Wouldn't hurt you a bit to open your eyes.

ago, but have kept busy, so there's no time for despair.

can't quote the source, but here goes -- a leader is someone who, grounded in hope, and together with followers, acts with courage to make an inauthentic situation authentic.

K&R!

As I mentioned in the post, my original attraction to Obama's candidacy was that he seemed to be the most credible candidate to confront what I consider our biggest crises: the war in Iraq and opacity and secrecy in government. I think racial division is a somewhat less pressing crisis, but a crisis nonetheless.

:shrug:

I heard him saying the legacy of racism will be hard to work past, but if we focus on the issues we can help ALL Americans.

America's racial problems are hurting everyone. Everyone is upset. Everybody has something they need to say and have others listen to, just like they need to listen to others. This isn't one or another group's problem; this is a national problem.

But there's an easy way to say that and a hard way to say that. Obama chose the hard way.

The easy way is to just say "black people are discriminated against and that makes everyone feel bad so we all have to do something about it." The hard way is what Obama said: black people and white people have been more or less angry at and distrustful of each other and both groups have concerns the other needs to listen to.

<snip>I learned about leadership in the Marines as an NCO. I'm very grateful I didn't learn about it in the poisonous corporate world I went to after, or in academia. A leader can set goals and allocate resources, but a leader (an effective one, at least) cannot tell those he is leading how to do their jobs. If I tell one of my lance corporals to go take a hill, I can't tell him how to do it because he'll be the one there, and he'll have to make that decision. That's a lesson too much of the corporate world missed out on. If one of my lance corporals makes a mistake, as hard as it is (and it's the hardest leadership challenge I ever faced) I have to let him make it, because I can't second-guess the people I work for ("leading", in the Marines at least, is synonymous with "working for"). It's trust. It's trust that the people "under" you are worthy of your respect and can handle their responsibilities. And sometimes they fail, just like sometimes you fail, and your leaders don't throw you under the bus when you do, so you have to accept when those you lead fail also (though you can make sure they learn from it).<snip>

I absolutely agree with your thoughts about leadership. Especially about trust being important. The only thing I can add, is without ethical behavior there is no trust.

Warfare is an art in using creativity to overcome chaos. If politics is warfare without the violence, Obama is a damn good Grand Strategist.

GObama!
Go Dean's 50 State Strategy!
Go Grassroots!

I didn't process it during the speech but reading it over I'm amazed. The bussing anger was used (tacitly) by Nixon and Reagan to get white votes. They wanted to use it, but they couldn't really talk about it. Obama just addressed it directly (yes, there are people still pissed off about it, 30-40 years later). He said he knows people are angry, just like Wright is angry. God damn, that was the right thing to do.

:kick:
GObama!
Go Dean's 50 State Strategy!
Go Grassroots!

K&R