Throwing People At It

I am among those who have held back unconditional positive approbation of our new President, even as he, as candidate, was racking up an impressive streak of Primary victories last Spring and Summer. The reason? I knew Americans were in such a swivet over President George Bush, who really didn't do a very good job in the White House, that they/we would do almost anything to change the "flavor" of what was coming out of Washington. We wanted to "feel" that there was an Adminstration in WA which was less partisan, more forthright, more accessible, more reflective of progressive values, etc. Obama and his team played those strings on our mental and emotional harps with as much skill as Orpheus played his lyre. But I saw it all as a bit of a game--you just figure out what people want to hear, tell them those things, and bingo!, you are elected. It is, of course, a little more involved than that, but I think that is the basic point.

But now we come to the hard work of governing. And a picture of the new President is beginning to emerge for me. Though he is enough of a traditional Democrat to want to throw money at problems (of course, the Bush Administration, a solidly "R" outfit, was most munificent in this regard), what really characterizes him is his growing willingness to throw people at problems. He has created more advisors with high-level and cross-cutting responsibilities than ever. The latest announcement today, that he is creating a 15-member independent (i.e., outside of WA DC) economic advisory panel, overseen by former Fed Chief Paul Volcker, is the latest clue not to the nation's recovery but to the President's psyche. When in doubt, appoint advisors. Don't worry about how the advisors relate to long-established people in long-existing jobs and departments. Don't try to explain how their process will be managed or how their information will "flow" into the White House, which is already so cloyed with high level information gatherers that we stand the risk of simply being awash in data with little wisdom over the next few years.

In order for information to be useful for us in our individual lives we need not simply a central processing unit, where all the info is "dumped," but we need a sophisticated sorting, storage and retrieval system for the information. This is a prerequisite to being able to use the information gathered with wisdom. What I don't think we have in this country is a person/people who act as the central processing unit for important information that flows our way, and, as it were, "categorizes, sorts, stores, and retrieves" all the relevant information for ourselves. Thus, we not only have the phenomenon of reports that gather dust but of people who will have to shout louder and louder to be heard, since everyone now thinks that s/he occupies a crucial place at the table.

Thus, the picture that is emerging for me of our new President is of a charming person, of high intelligence, who really does want to do the best for a wider swath of Americans than his predecessor. But because of his inexperience and relative naivete in the world, and because of the image he wanted to build of himself in the primaries (as the candidate of change, post-partisanship, bold new ideas, etc.), he finds himself being forced into the corner of continuing to name special advisors who will provide him with material so he can be the President that his image said he would be. He is in the first stages, then, of being trapped by his image, rather than being able to lead by virtue of his skills/personality. So, it is the "Obama image" rather than Obama himself which is now responsible for the proliferation of expertise that is being tapped today.

The President also didn't do himself any favors by very self-consciously adopting an "imitation of Lincoln" campaign. He would, like Doris Kearns Goodwin said about Lincoln, stock his cabinet and advisors with people from the opposite party; he would "ride the train" to WA like Lincoln did; he would take the oath of office on a Lincoln-used Bible. It reminds me of the way that Bill Clinton wanted to take on himself the mantle of Thomas Jefferson. Why can't people simply try to live on the basis of their own strength and accomplishments, perhaps giving credit to those who have shaped them or influenced their thinking, without trying to give the impression that they are Lincoln or Jefferson redivivus?

Well, is he anything more than these images he has created? That remains to be seen...

What Is Missing

What is missing in the flurry of all these things is a cogent description of our condition. This description needs, perforce, to be a thick one, one that doesn't simply reduce things to a "credit crunch" or to unwise bank or investment practices--though that may bulk large in our description. Then, there needs to be an application of rather simple values to the data that is discovered and presented. Those simple values? Only leverage yourself to the extent that you can comfortably survive (people will differ here, of course); be clear to people what is being done along the way (I am convinced that unnecessary complexity is being throw into our analysis and systems). Then, there need to be some rather cogent options that are placed before us. At this point a massive 'stimulus' of more than $900 billion/$800 billion surely is a way for many people to get rich, whether or not it will actually help a lot of folks in the long run.

My considered opinion at this stage of life, and at this point in our nation's history, is that there is not only tons of money "on the sidelines," as my humbled financial advisor tells me, but there is a lot of wisdom "on the sidelines" as America goes into its next phase. That wisdom is held mostly by people in my "age cohort," many of whom have retired early because they made a killing in the Clinton stock market. Many of these people not only have a lot of wisdom, but they aren't hung up on creating or maintaining an image for themselves. They are, for the most part, content to live with their wives (I am talking guys here...) and nurture their college-age and older kids. But in fact, America really needs these people, even more than we need another council of economic advisors. If we just tap into this expertise, most of our problems, I think, would begin to fade...

4062