The "Axis of Evil" man has found his soul mate. Michael Gerson, George W. Bush's oratorical muse, is now in love with Bobby Jindal, who "has the ability to overwhelm any topic with facts and thoughtful arguments--displaying a mastery of detail that encourages confidence...with the world-changing intensity of a late-night dorm room discussion."
Others saw the Louisiana governor's response to Obama last night differently. Andrew Sullivan called it "tired, exhausted, boilerplate" and even the Fox News folks "panned" it. But Gerson recognizes a fellow wonk when he sees one--a "hall-monitoring, library-inhabiting, science-fair-winning class president" from high-school days.
The problem with such over-articulate nerds as Gerson and Jindal is that their fluency with words is too often disconnected from what everyone else would call reality.
Gerson could give Bush the "smoking gun, mushroom cloud" metaphor when there was absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein was anywhere close to having a nuclear weapon, just as Jindal can now prate, "The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians."
As Barack Obama is making brains popular again with the American people, it's important not to confuse rhetoric alone without the kind of emotional intelligence needed to connect facts with feelings, understanding with empathy.
As Gerson has been demonstrating in his stint as a Washington Post columnist after Bill Kristol's disastrous year with the New York Times, the bar for brilliance is set low in the Neo-Con world. Next to them (and Sarah Palin), Jindal may indeed be of more imposing intellectual stature than he showed last night.
Showing posts with label emotional intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emotional intelligence. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Obama: Balancing Heart and Mind
At his press conference Friday, the President-Elect said he was rereading Lincoln for "inspiration," but he may also want to take another look at David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest."
Like JFK, Barack Obama values brains, but Halberstam's book might inspire him to be wary of the hubris that can blindside academic brilliance without accompanying insight into the realities of human behavior, as it did with Kennedy's overachievers who went on to bring down LBJ with their tunnel vision of the Vietnam war.
Obama has shown the self-awareness and empathy--some call it "emotional intelligence"--needed for leadership but, in overturning all the clichés about "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," the real test will come in creating and managing a government with all those qualities.
"The second most remarkable thing about his election," Nicholas Kristof writes, "is that American voters have just picked a president who is an open, out-of-the-closet, practicing intellectual...
"Smart and educated leadership is no panacea, but we’ve seen recently that the converse—a White House that scorns expertise and shrugs at nuance—doesn’t get very far either."
But, Kristof adds, "It doesn’t help that intellectuals are often as full of themselves as of ideas."
The 1972 look back at Vietnam took its scathing "Best and Brightest" title from Kennedy's so-called "whiz kids," thinkers from industry and academia such as Robert McNamara and the Bundy brothers, whom Halberstam characterized as arrogantly insisting on "brilliant policies that defied common sense" in the Vietnam quagmire.
(For his pains, a new report shows Halberstam was closely tracked by the FBI for two decades, another sign that too much thinking of any kind is suspect in American politics.)
Obama's Illinois predecessor, Adlai Stevenson, who lost the presidency twice half a century ago being labeled an unworldly "egghead," observed, “The hardest thing about any campaign is how to win without proving you’re unworthy of winning.”
The President-Elect has cleared that hurdle and now faces the higher leap into governing with a winning balance of heart and mind.
Like JFK, Barack Obama values brains, but Halberstam's book might inspire him to be wary of the hubris that can blindside academic brilliance without accompanying insight into the realities of human behavior, as it did with Kennedy's overachievers who went on to bring down LBJ with their tunnel vision of the Vietnam war.
Obama has shown the self-awareness and empathy--some call it "emotional intelligence"--needed for leadership but, in overturning all the clichés about "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," the real test will come in creating and managing a government with all those qualities.
"The second most remarkable thing about his election," Nicholas Kristof writes, "is that American voters have just picked a president who is an open, out-of-the-closet, practicing intellectual...
"Smart and educated leadership is no panacea, but we’ve seen recently that the converse—a White House that scorns expertise and shrugs at nuance—doesn’t get very far either."
But, Kristof adds, "It doesn’t help that intellectuals are often as full of themselves as of ideas."
The 1972 look back at Vietnam took its scathing "Best and Brightest" title from Kennedy's so-called "whiz kids," thinkers from industry and academia such as Robert McNamara and the Bundy brothers, whom Halberstam characterized as arrogantly insisting on "brilliant policies that defied common sense" in the Vietnam quagmire.
(For his pains, a new report shows Halberstam was closely tracked by the FBI for two decades, another sign that too much thinking of any kind is suspect in American politics.)
Obama's Illinois predecessor, Adlai Stevenson, who lost the presidency twice half a century ago being labeled an unworldly "egghead," observed, “The hardest thing about any campaign is how to win without proving you’re unworthy of winning.”
The President-Elect has cleared that hurdle and now faces the higher leap into governing with a winning balance of heart and mind.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Previewing the Obama-McCain Debates
When the candidates face off this fall in the political version of reality TV's survivor shows, what are we likely to see?
The scripts are obvious--Change vs. Bush Three--as is the imagery, idealistic young guy vs. gritty old-timer. But many viewers will be making their choices on a subtext: Who makes them feel better--and safer?
On that score, both candidates have serious work to do. As David Brooks points out today, "Obama has to come up with a personal narrative voters can relate to. McCain needs to come up with a one-sentence description for why he represents a clean break and a compelling future."
TV debates, starting with the first, have always been more about music than words. While Kennedy was deploring a non-existent "missile gap" with the Russians and arguing with Nixon over defending Formosa from the Chinese, voters were seeing a confident Presidential-looking JFK and a shifty, uneasy Nixon (who famously rejected makeup and looked unshaven in the first outing).
McCain and Obama handlers are too sophisticated to allow visual gaffes, but the candidates' style and demeanor will be crucial.
Does Obama come across as a plausible game-changing new kind of political leader or a cocky, overeducated young African-American with con-man patter?
Will McCain look like a rock-solid patriotic President open to a new future or a grumpy old man holding on to outdated ideas?
They are both too deft to fall into stereotypes, but the debates will hinge on their performances as much as their platforms. Undecided voters will be sitting back and challenging them to show their true selves. What some psychologists call "emotional intelligence," the ability to connect viscerally with others, will be more crucial than brains or bombast.
Cynics may see that as putting on an act but, in the 21st century, it's always show time.
The scripts are obvious--Change vs. Bush Three--as is the imagery, idealistic young guy vs. gritty old-timer. But many viewers will be making their choices on a subtext: Who makes them feel better--and safer?
On that score, both candidates have serious work to do. As David Brooks points out today, "Obama has to come up with a personal narrative voters can relate to. McCain needs to come up with a one-sentence description for why he represents a clean break and a compelling future."
TV debates, starting with the first, have always been more about music than words. While Kennedy was deploring a non-existent "missile gap" with the Russians and arguing with Nixon over defending Formosa from the Chinese, voters were seeing a confident Presidential-looking JFK and a shifty, uneasy Nixon (who famously rejected makeup and looked unshaven in the first outing).
McCain and Obama handlers are too sophisticated to allow visual gaffes, but the candidates' style and demeanor will be crucial.
Does Obama come across as a plausible game-changing new kind of political leader or a cocky, overeducated young African-American with con-man patter?
Will McCain look like a rock-solid patriotic President open to a new future or a grumpy old man holding on to outdated ideas?
They are both too deft to fall into stereotypes, but the debates will hinge on their performances as much as their platforms. Undecided voters will be sitting back and challenging them to show their true selves. What some psychologists call "emotional intelligence," the ability to connect viscerally with others, will be more crucial than brains or bombast.
Cynics may see that as putting on an act but, in the 21st century, it's always show time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)