XXX: State of the Union

I watched a little bit of the State of the Union Address. What I saw reinforces one of many reasons I think Obama is successful, and one of the things I like most about him. He’s a master at showing empathy for all sides, and he does it constantly. I assume this is part of his natural make up, but I’m sure he realizes the political power of it as well and employs it accordingly. I read The Audacity of Hope (a very good read in many ways, not the least of which is the candid, reasonable picture it gives of why politicians are the way they are and do the things they do; particularly in areas that make us citizens suspicious of them, such as the role of special interests and campaign donations.) a couple years ago and was struck by his habit of expounding all points of view of an issue—even, and most importantly, the one diametrically opposite his own—in their most cogent light. And right before or after he does that, he empathizes with why people would believe that point of view. Some have criticized this professorial approach to ideas as not conducive to the decisiveness called for in high leadership posts. I think that’s ridiculous. My reading of history and its notables tells me that intellectual empathy is a common trait in the most successful leaders. That was one of Bush’s problems. Very little to no intellectual empathy. I usually agreed or was neutral with what he did, so I didn’t experience much frustration, but I can imagine that those on the other side must have felt totally disenfranchised by his administration, because they were so dogmatic, subjective, and arrogant. He didn’t give the vibe that he really understood or cared about what made the other 50% of America tick. While Obama has already done, and surely will do future things I adamantly disagree with, I feel like he tosses a tiny bone my way by acknowledging that the way I feel is legitimate and he understands every angle of it, but just happens to disagree in this case. For example, he was justifying the stimulus package in his speech. He said a few things to sooth conservative angst and suspicion, like placing blame on “people who applied for home loans they knew they couldn't afford,” and adding that we weren’t going to help the obvious cases of this. He also calmed liberal doubt with lines like the one concerning why we should give money to banks that caused part of the mess to begin with. The point is, I still disagree with the stimulus, but I feel like he takes “my” point of view into account and maybe it works to modify some disagreeable parts of the legislation. What’s maybe even more remarkable than his show of empathy, is that he does it while still being a forceful and persuasive champion of his point of view.

I don’t get why more leaders don’t understand this vital principle. I think it’s one of the most effective ways to gain influence.

Other thoughts on the speech event:

Does anyone in the world like Nancy Pelosi? Is she not the most loathsome person since The Emperor in Star Wars? I’m not even talking about her politics; just her person. What is it about her? Is it that she's just the ultimate Serious Susan and every single thing she does or says looks calculated and evil? A few commentators accused Mitt of being a cyborg or robot, because he came across as a little too perfect. Too charming, articulate, polished, adaptable, etc. Well Pelosi is a cyborg because she looks and acts exactly like... a cyborg. An emotionless creation with synthetic flesh glued onto its titanium frame. She needs to go away. For the good of everyone involved.

I still can’t get over what a goofball Joe Biden is. Does anyone remember the used car salesman that Bernie Mac buys the van from in Ocean’s 11? That’s who Biden reminds me of.

Jindal’s rebuttal: Uh Oh. Time to go on Carson.