A Great Theory of Change
I have a love/hate relationship with NY Times columnist, David Brooks. I think he’s a very articulate and observant social critic (loved his wry ’90s book, Bobos in Paradise), and an absolutely brain-addled political commentator. But he’s parsed the differences between Clinton and Obama in an interesting way:
“For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens.
“Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o’clock in the morning.
“But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. — as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.”
Terrific insight. I’m not sure we’re ready for this yet–too many embedded hierarchical systems to overcome for this to work in ‘08. But we might be seeing the last gasp of old politics, which Brooks characterizes as the one “filled with conflict and bad choices.”
Win or lose, perhaps Obama signals an evolutionary step forward. As with Beatles lyrics and other accidental profundities, Obama’s campaign may have stumbled onto something much larger than winning the presidency. Win or lose, by accident or design, Obama may have taken the first step in the creative destruction of an institution that is crumbling under its own weight and inbred corruption. In that regard, Obama’s candidacy is historic beyond all measure.
Posted: March 4th, 2008 under Hillary, Obama, VOTE!.
Comments: 7
Comments
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 4, 2008, 5:06 pm
Blame it on Nose Better. He said he liked the exchanges between and among the bloggers as well as those of you who are frequent and occasional commenters. So we are back at it.
Lefty writes: “I’m not sure we’re ready for this yet–too many embedded hierarchical systems to overcome for this to work in ‘08.”
I don’t know Lefty’s age, but what is going on here is generational. Brooks is talking about the familiarity of the net-generation to grove (that dates me) to a social network rather than an authoritarian, top-down structure. There is no Organization Man. Instead there is only a Disorganization Thing.
What Superior Delegates are seeing is something transformational in a Black candidate who can attrack and deliver younger voters. If Obama were to slip tonight in Texas (Clinton will win Ohio), and this were to drag out, and if the mischief ends up in Clinton’s favor, there are other Obamas out there; there are other Hillary’s out there.
Both Clinton and Obama are transformation candidates. That is the exciting the stuff and the Pugs are beside themselves with retro McBush.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: March 4, 2008, 6:38 pm
Nothing controversial here, Josh. I think we do have to talk about the campaign, but elevate the dialog beyond the horse race and the personalities.
I agree it’s generational and it’s exciting. I’m on the younger side of the Boomer generation, and professionally engaged in transformational companies and technologies. I live this stuff which is why I thought Brook’s article was worth posting. I’m not sure Hillary is all that transformational–she’s been slower to address the web and to Brook’s point, her management style seems more command and control than Obama’s. Probably what unnerves some people about Obama is that seeming lack of hierarchical style that typifies conventional strong leadership. I’m not sure we’re ready as a society to full embrace the social network model of popular power yet. But I know that my kids are and Obama, win or lose, is either a deliberate or accidental pioneer. Either way, he’s moved the bar. The campaign in 2012 will be revolutionary–hopefully in a good way.
Readers…what do you think?
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 4, 2008, 9:58 pm
I’m not ignoring you. I just find Mr. Brooks so vacuous that being in his presence, even the presence of his written material, is painful.
Comment from Nosebetter
Time: March 4, 2008, 11:30 pm
I don’t know that these election results qualify as a “Hail Hillary Pass” but I do think Hillary would be a fool to drop out at this point…
…and the beat goes on.
Comment from suzanne
Time: March 5, 2008, 12:17 am
Who says Hillary’s not transformational? And if Mark Penn was behind the SNL and Daily Show appearances, maybe he actually deserves a little credit here. The thing with Hillary is that she’s like ‘the little engine that could’. Nothing keeps her down. I admire that.
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 5, 2008, 5:29 pm
I say she isn’t transformational. I am unable to find a single thing she has done that hasn’t been overdone before. Even Shirley Chisholm and Rudy Guiliani wore dresses.
Comment from suzanne
Time: March 6, 2008, 11:06 am
Sasha - As much as you dislike Hillary Clinton, and I fully support your right to do so, the woman is running for POTUS! Clearly this is one thing that has not been overdone. Her run for the most powerful job in the country (arguably the world) is transformational for all of us - whether you choose to see it or not. As for who wears dresses - it appears Hillary prefers pantsuits.
Write a comment