Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
It Is the Process, Stupid: The Unappreciated Power of Obama's Empathic Problem-Solving Method
Most commentators fault Obama for not being like Hillary, not as steeped in policies and programs as she. They think voters want to know what the candidates will put in place after they're elected. That conclusion has some merit, but that's a small picture view. The big picture, as Obama knows, the two parties have been stalemating each other for at least since the Nixon Administration. Neither one can form a consensus long enough to create lasting, viable change. So the overarching problem in America is entirely a process problem.
The problem is, How do you form a consensus to create the kind of progressive changes both candidates envision? To be more precise, How do you take your left of center base and unite it with the Far Left and the 20 percent in the middle to create a 60 percent majority?
It does seem that process really is the most important issue at this point in our history. Were I Obama, I would be pounding the above analysis and conclusion every time I spoke. I agree that it's a difficult point to make, especially with people who don't study process and use it in their work.
The particular difficulty he's having is that his process--his style of creating coalitions--is unfamiliar to most people. The old style, power politics as advocated by Lyndon Johnson, one of Clinton's heroes, is to slap together a package of pork and arm-twisting along with straightforward appeals to enlightened self-interest of the stakeholders. The emphasis is, as Hillary has so frequently said, on being a "fighter."
Of course, she never answers the question, What has your style of fighting gotten us? It can be argued that, if she had Obama's method of solving problems, she could have gotten universal health care approved during the first years of her husband's presidency. She fought. She excluded her opponents from the proceses, which polarized them. Fighting really is the cause of the debilitating stalements from whch we've suffered for decades.
Obama relies more on empathy. However, despite long-standing and deepening reliance on it among clinicians and, more recently, experts in international relations, empathy still seems, at best, a reed in the wind of special interests and, at worst, a capitulation. But many of us who have studied and used it for many years know that it truly is the difference that can actually bring people together, as Obama demonstrated in his speech on race.
Of course, he didn't solve the racial divide and said he had no expectation of some huge change in the racial tensions in this country. But he did create lasting change, however small. He enabled people on both sides of the issue to temporarily understand each other and feel for each other enough that they could begin reconsidering their positions. One can readily imagine how that process could develop over four or eight years to create more substantial progress.
In most political struggles, people take positions and pound them. And they degrade the opposition. From his work as a community organizer helping to build coalitions to create change, Obama knows better than any well known politician that beating up the people that initially oppose you can only destroy any chance you have of uniting enough people to make a change. And he knows that you can't fake empathy. It has to be intellectually credible and you have to be reasonably consistent in expressing it. My only concern is that he lacks the underpinning of professional and academic consensus on empathy as the most powerful influence for betterment. So he is vulnerable to losing his empathic stance at times and being swayed into making disempathic statements. But this failing shouldn't distract us from his fundamental core, his genuine feeling for even the people who oppose him.
Obama's genuineness is easy to prove, most notably because his mother had a solid reputation as an amazingly genuine respectful person. He means what he says about white middle class men when he says that they are understandable and have a real beef against the PC movement that trashed them for being racist. I hope he comes back to that message, because that's not just his strength. It's what America must have to solve the devastating problems that threaten to destroy our heirs' future.
Comments (25)
I like this post a lot - it's very insightful and I also agree with it, so of course I like it - ;)
Just kidding - it's very well done recommended.
April 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
SOLVE THIS PROBLEM
Ayers, Rezko, Wright, bitter, cling to, more Wright, Auchi, oh god Wright won't shut up, Hannity, that rentless woman, O'Reilly, Rove.
Sorry times up! You Lose
But thank you for playing.
The RNC swiftboat geenyus
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR GUILTY CONSCIENCE
April 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear HusseinTenaX:
Thanks for the feedback.
How did you have that picture taken of you. My wife and i are in the art deco society in san francisco, and we love that old style photography.
April 25, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That avatar is a photo of the American silent film actress Louise Brooks. That particular photo currently turns up on page 2 of the results for a search for "Louise Brooks" on Google Images.
April 26, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This calls for some cynicism.
Obama, for all his vaunted empathy, has yet to win over a majority of his own party, to say nothing of the national electorate. He has achieved this while running against a candidate, Clinton, deeply unpopular with a substantial segment of her party as a result of her unrepudiated vote to authorize the Iraq war and the centrism of her husband's administration, whose gender also puts her at a significant disadvantage, and who has endured more than a decade of character assasination from the right and unremittingly negative press coverage. Add to that his overwhelming "favorite son" support among African Americans, and the 60 percent majority of which you speak seems a bit of a pipe dream.
Perhaps it's not process voters are looking for. Allow yourself this thought: Maybe we just want a President who will do a good job!
Finally, I don't think Obama's most effective message would be "empathy" for the "beef" of the white middle class male's understandable anger at the PC movement. To the contrary, I believe it's this kind of tone-deaf condescension that has contributed to the Democrats' penchant for losing elections.
April 25, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must disagree with you, Guerilla. So far, Obama *has* won over the majority of his party--it's just by too slim a margin to yet give him the nomination. While Clinton is unpopular because of her war vote, she's also got the name recognition, the history, and the connection to Bill Clinton, so I would hardly say that this puts Obama at an advantage. Nor does her gender, when contrasted with his race. People who will mind either will generally mind both.
If you listen to Obama's statements--both when he mangled them in California and, a year earlier, on Charlie Rose--you will indeed hear empathy, just as you can hear it in his "A More Perfect Union" speech. He could rail against the racism that is throwing obstacles in his way (as surely as does misogyny throw obstacles in Hillary's--I'm not claiming she is racist or that he is misogynist, just that both of them have more to overcome than most candidates). Instead, he clearly states that people have a right to be upset when faced with affirmative action that doesn't help THEM, which seems punishment for a crime they and their ancestors never committed, after their own parents or grandparents came to this country and succeeded without similar help.
I wholly agree with and recommend McFadden's post.
April 25, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Armchair Guerilla,
You wrote: Obama "has yet to win over a majority of his own party."
He was far behind when he started, 25 percentage points in Pennsylvania. So his argument is that he's winning people over but that it takes much time to get to know a politician when lots of people who are on TV every day and his opponents are degrading him as being weak, radical, out of touch and deceptive, or not genuine. Stay tuned, he's going to get across who he truly is as is exemplified in a careful, detailed reading of his history based on interviews with people who have worked and studied with him throughout his academic, community organization, and political careers.
You wrote,
"Finally, I don't think Obama's most effective message would be "empathy" for the "beef" of the white middle class male's understandable anger at the PC movement. To the contrary, I believe it's this kind of tone-deaf condescension that has contributed to the Democrats' penchant for losing elections." I guess you think his empathy in his speech on race for the plight of the white working class voter was condescending. That's the problem with empathy, love, respect, etc. Any time you express support for someone, it can be taken as condescension. But let's be clear, the empathy he expressed in his speech on race was effective for many people, as interviews and polls suggested. Moreover, the genuineness and noncondescension of empathy is something that you gradually test in your relationship with the person who's empathizing with you. It may seem condescending, at which point that reaction can be discussed and the empathic ideas can be adjusted to more sensitively capture the person's position. As therapist, I find that this process is never ending and fraught with possibilities for hurting the feelings of my clients, but overall, I am able to refine what I think and say about the person to communicate relieving, problem solving empathy. Obama has that capacity, as he's demonstrated in grueling work on the front lines in the Chicago community organization in which he labored.
More to the point of Obama's ultimate purpose in empathizing, uniting the country, he has sold the working class people who are for him on the idea that he has to at least disagree without being disagreeable to create real and lasting change. Fighting creates stalemates; it polarizes.
April 25, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Preach:
While I don't agree with everything you said, I commend your thoughtful and temperate, dare I say empathetic, response. Two points I'd like to answer.
First, you seem to believe it is a matter of time before voters warm to Obama. I am not as sanguine about his prospects and fear he may have hit a ceiling. I am not convinced that his message of transformation and change will resonate across the spectrum. If he is the nominee and your expectations are borne out, I will be happy.
Second, I was not trying to say that Obama's Philadelphia speech to be condescending. To the contrary, I found it refreshingly honest. My point is similar to that of another poster here: that many voters are interested in results. Attempts to explain their plight often come across as condescension. As one who has endured relentless browbeating from Obama supporters at any perceived skepticism of the candidate (notwithstanding my admiration for all he has accomplished and may yet still), I have experienced such alienating condescension firsthand.
April 26, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellently written.
"In most political struggles, people take positions and pound them. And they degrade the opposition. From his work as a community organizer helping to build coalitions to create change, Obama knows better than any well known politician that beating up the people that initially oppose you can only destroy any chance you have of uniting enough people to make a change."
I couldn't have illustrated his style better myself.
It's something I have worked hard in my life (imperfectly) to implement in my dealings with those I disagree with.
Even though it doesn't often result in perfect agreements, it is a much more desirable path that often leads to a much better outcome than the typical fight - say, that of the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters on this very blog.
April 25, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would also back up your statement that Obama is genuine by citing his "A More Perfect Union Speech." I don't hear it stated enough, so I'll say it here myself: the candidate said things in that speech that could easily have hurt him, and may well do so before the game is up, that I can't help but feel he was either being honest or insanely stupid. And judging on how he's run his campaign and how it has performed, I'm forced to choose the former.
I was an Edwards supporter in the beginning. What really "clinched it" as Richardson said of the same was this speech. Obama spoke to America as a nation of adults who have experienced the same problem he is discussing, and with a true desire to see some progress toward its resolution starting in our lifetime.
April 25, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I understand the basis of the argument, it is that it doesn't matter if his policy prescriptions are crap, or nonexistent, because he is "empathetic" with the troubles of American citizens. To which I can only respond, "Huh?"
First, I have to say, that I don't see the "empathetic" character in his public performances. I see a skillful politician and accomplished speaker in an expensive suit. An intelligent, well-educated, ambitious man who likes to live high on the hog.
Second, I think that the ability to get his hands dirty with policy specifics was an essential component of Bill Clinton's success as President. And, although you and I may have serious disagreements about the nature of his policy decisions, the fact is he was successful at accomplishing his policy goals. Therefore, I find unconvincing your argument that Obama's "strength" is his lack of that ability.
Third, the answer to the question of "what has her style accomplished?" is actually fairly obvious: Social Security, Medicare, the Great Society, integration and the associated Civil Rights battles. I have to say, frankly, that voters are less interested in "empathy" than they are in "results."
Thanks.
mp
April 25, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And "results" are something HRC has never produced.
April 25, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see a skillful politician and accomplished speaker in an expensive suit.
His suits are not expensive. (I know suits.) They are just a nice fit.
April 26, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael says:
I think that the ability to get his hands dirty with policy specifics was an essential component of Bill Clinton's success as President....., the fact is he was successful at accomplishing his policy goals.
---
Unfortunately, the real hard truth is that Bill was only successful at capitulating to the other side's demands such that the policies that came about were against the Democratic class much moreso than for it. His policies were anti-labor, anti-union and NAFTA has helped no one but the multinational conglomerates. He also stripped the Fair Act from media communications which has resulted in media consolidation and unfair and unbalanced media reporting. In the end Bill was only successful at acceeding to the GOP's policy because he so angered them with Hillary in charge of universal health care that NewtGingrich wiped out the 40 year Democratic majority.
While you may like that 'success' many of us understand that Bill's policies ultimately hurt the American public and that the economic success of the 90s during his administration were the direct result of DaddyBush raising taxes and the total collapse of the economy was begun with Bill's policies and have come to fruition during Dubya's term and been escalated due to Dubya's complete incompetency in all matters pertaining to domestic as well as foreign policy but most especially in putting the bill for this war on a credit card issued by the bank of China.
April 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't understand the basis of the argument. Consider 4 situations: (1) bad policies, poor implementer, (2) bad policies, good implementer, (3) good policies, poor implementer, (4) good policies, good implementer.
Saying that (4) is better than (3), is not the same thing as saying (2) is better than (3). However, there is a little more nuance than that: The best policies that are never implemented are worse than good policies that are.
Now, I don't necessarily think that Clinton's policies are better (they're not really that different), but even if they are, that won't help us any if they never get implemented.
April 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what you mean by this:
Has anyone heard from Hillary what she would do on her famous "Day One?" One single example? One specific? NO! She is no more specific than when she enumerates her "experience" from when she was in college, a first lady of Arkansas, or the US. She disavows or claims ignorance of all the negatives, and claims ownership of anything positive that took place in all that time.
I AM SO GLAD THAT OBAMA IS NOT LIKE HILLARY! But it is not because Hillary has so many specifics that I disagree with; she is full of bloviating bullshit, and other than OBLITERATING IRAN I know little of what she could hope to accomplish. The fact that her negatives are so profound would make any normal person wonder what in the hell she could ever hope to accomplish.
Look at the second Clinton administration. I don't want more of that same drama! Put a fork in it Hillary! You will never be effective nationally so stop ruining our country's only hope for your ego.
April 25, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. As I was reading it, it occured to me that the most successful part of the Republicans has been in narrowing the perception of who they are. As long as Karl Rove has been running everything the definition of a Republican has gotten more right, and more religious. It doesn't leave then with as large a range of identities to have to content with. Ironically, it leaves the Democrats with everyone else.
April 25, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Post! It's too bad that the nuance is lost on our sound byte populace!
April 25, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, and I know exactly what you are saying here. I have worked in government and the political arena myself, and I've seen first-hand how these qualities -- that may seem nebulous in theory -- play out in practice. I've also witnessed some of what DOESN'T work. It's these personal experiences that have influenced my thinking about what kinds of qualities I look for in a leader, and that in turn is a large part of why I support Obama. At the same time, it is true that a lot of voters may not understand the value of some of these qualities.
For example, there are those who get heartburn over the notion of Obama's willingness to sit down at the table with our enemies; they interpret that as a sign of weakness, as a sign of "capitulation" -- perhaps because they can't envision what that kind of conversation might look like. However, if one has any experience with dispute resolution / mediation processes -- if the right skills and traits are brought to bear, the results can sometimes surpass expectations. That whole thing about starting off finding common ground even while acknowleding/working through hostility, and then using that to build upon -- that really can work in amazing ways. Even the worst of the worst want to feel listened to and understood, even if there's disagreement.
Also, a candidate can be intellectually brilliant, but there are different kinds of intelligence and I'm sure we can all think of someone who is a genius in a particular discipline, but a hopeless mess when it comes to interpersonal skills. I've witnessed this in my career -- someone may be the most wonkish of wonks, but if that person lacks other types of intelligence, including intuition, emotional intelligence, listening skills, negotiation skills, flexiblity, and the ego-strength to be able to give thoughtful and respectful consideration to dissenting viewpoints -- even the most brilliantly conceived policy proposals can go down in flames. An inclusive, collaborative process seems to have achieved much more effective results from what I've observed, than bullying strong-arm game-playing.
And yes, there is something to be said for the grass-roots "bottom up" collaborative/inclusive model. One of the city offices I worked for was really big into community and neighborhood programs. It took some coordination, organization and regular communication -- but I was always humbled and grateful to see how much ordinary citizens were willing to give of their time, money, talent -- all they needed was some coordination, specific direction, sometimes training, regular communication -- and they were thrilled to find that they could make a difference. Whether it was community policing, helping families in need, clean-up efforts, mentoring, literacy programs, even tapping into the valuable life experience of retired senior citizens to help the overburdened Child Protective Services work as child advocates . . . well that is what I think of when Obama talks about "we are the change." Obama's experience as a community organizer naturally gets bigs snaps from me because I've seen how it CAN work.
Sorry this post is so long.
April 25, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recmnd!
nicely written.
excellent post.
April 26, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. Obama is going to create a new coalition stronger than the Clinton machine of the 90's. The electoral landscape is shifting and he is way ahead of the curve. And I am not anti-Clinton. Despite all of his shortcomings, Bill was the best we have had in my 34 year old lifetime. It's just that Hillary is a candidate, while Obama is a movement.
April 26, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a sweet article. So full of lofty ideals. It pains me to have to take issue with any of it, but your contention that Hillary failed at her first attempt at reforming health care because she "excluded her opponents from the proceses, (sic) which polarized them" is, how can I say this gently... WRONG. Our dear friends, the Republicans, wanted to destroy the Clintons, and set upon them from the instant they took office, never letting up. Health care was their first chance, and they did not fail to take it. And when they crushed our chance at desperately needed health care system reform, they were openly gleeful. Video is available. Ultimately they impeached Bill for his Lewinski trist, and were livid that he not only remained in office, but retained his vast popularity.
Hillary did not polarize the Republicans. The Republicans were united in their effort to have the world their way or no way. So if Hillary learned some lessons about how one has to fight, I'm sure you'll understand.
By the way, if you think Hillary is not able to build consensus and work with the GOP, take a look at her Senate record. It is anything but the image of a polarizer.
April 26, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It pains me to have to take issue with any of it, but your contention that Hillary failed at her first attempt at reforming health care because she "excluded her opponents from the proceses, (sic) which polarized them" is, how can I say this gently... WRONG.
Wrong again, Otto. Hillary admits excluding legislators from the healthcare process.
New York Daily News, April 16, 2008:
"If I had listened to you about health care in 1994, I would be far better off today - but more importantly - so would the nation's health care system," Clinton wrote Moynihan in October 2000, near the end of her New York Senate campaign to succeed the retiring Moynihan.
It was a confession in which the former First Lady seemed to acknowledge that - if not for her refusal to listen to congressional leaders in her own party like Moynihan - millions more Americans would likely have become insured.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/16/2008-04-16_hillary_clinton_learned_hard_lesson_on_h-3.html
April 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto,
How about you tell us some landmark legislation that Hillary 'ms.cnsensus' has achieved during her Senate tenure. Hillary's record in the Senate is not one of building a consensus but in capitulating to the GOP demands, thus she voted for No Child Left Behind, as well as the Bankruptcy Act that can charge consumers 30% interest and denies them the right to declare bankruptcy while allowing the corporations to continue to declare bankruptcy and let's not forget how she voted for the AUMF and the K-L amendment as well as opposing the Levin amendment.
The only lesson Hillary has learned is if you can't beat 'em join 'em which is why she has taken more lobbyists money than any other candidate Dem or GOp in the race and why she is the second highest recipient of healthcare lobbyists dollars as well as the largest recipient of defense lobbyist dollars in the Senate.
She doesn't build consensus on squat..she just lards up with money and capitulates to special interests. While becoming a warmongerer in the process a stalwart ally of Israel willing to obliterate Iran and forcing the American public to line the pockets of healthcare insurers with mandated healthcare along with penalties for not signing up.
The only consensus GoldwaterHill has built is of screwing the public while she gets rich.
April 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Otto didn't answer your very reasonable question, I hope you don't mind if I cut & paste it to him somewhere else.
April 26, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment