Time to Choose

Now that we have the first quarter of the presidential campaign under our belts and we've had enough time to sort out the top tier of candidates, one starts to feel under pressure to pick a candidate to support. If for no other reason than to define where you stand on the issues.

I've been back and forth and I think there is much left learn but, I think it is possible to pick someone at this stage. So, here's how I came down to it.

I think it's important to start at the end. That is, to start by thinking about what sort of president, and, importantly, what sort of administration team we want to see wading into their first 100 days in office in February 2009. This may seem obvious, but it can be tricky because it forces you to think through the question of how we get there from here. It also forces you to think about how we got to where we are now and what we want to change.

We stand at the end of a sequence of administrations that were all formed in the climate of a conservative revival that began in the 70s as a reaction to the 60s counter culture. We've had the founder of the revival, Ronald Reagan, his chosen successor, GHW Bush and his successor's son, GW Bush. This sequence was preceded and then interrupted, by two centrist, religious, southern Democratic governors, able to swim against the tide temporarily by differentiating themselves from the body of their own party.

The mainstream of the Democratic party have been shut out of the presidential process for nearly 40 years. To a lesser extent an older stream of the Republican party - the traditional, moneyed, WASP patriarchy - has been shut out for even longer. Bush Snr was really pretty much of this background but his candidacy and presidency were very much enabled and shaped by the Reagan revival.

So, in choosing who we want in power in 2009, we could pick representatives of one of these 4 long standing streams, Reagan GOP, traditional GOP, Clintonian centrist Democrat or traditional Democrat. Or we could go for something else altogether. I think the best answer is something else, because each of the 4 established streams have fairly rigid mindsets which include ideas that leave them unable to respond adequately to the enormous challenges of 21st century government.

George W Bush's principal legacy to American political life will be that his incompetence has managed to achieve what two generations of Democrats could not. He has brought an end to the Reagan conservative revival. Leaving it washed up and exposed as both morally and intellectually bankrupt. It is clear from the 2006 mid-terms and all the current polling that the American electorate has decided this and is keen to move on. So, the Reagan GOP is pretty much a non-starter at this point.

The traditional, corporatist GOP seems an unlikely choice as well. They represent interests that are far too narrow to be relevant to most of what's happening around us.
The traditional Democrat stream has been struggling to engage effectively for a couple of generations. In similar style but to a lesser extent than the traditional GOP they have too narrow a focus and keep getting blindsided by a world that is far more dynamic and complex than the one that formed their mindset 40 years ago.

So, on the face of it, this leaves the Clinton centrists as the most likely of the main established streams to deliver effective government. Whilst it is true that their determination to rethink things, along with their naked ambition and relentless opportunism, gives them a somewhat better chance to get a handle on current issues than some of the other contenders I think they also come up well short of what's needed. This is partly because this stream of politics has solidified into a something of a closed shop.

The very successful fund raising operations of the Clintons have hardened into a closed group of sponsors, interests and operatives who are bound together as much by loyalty to each other as by any coherent philosophy. All of which is exacerbated by the somewhat bizarre process of anointing a former first lady as the lead candidate. I very much fear that an administration formed from this stream could fail badly, by getting locked into too many deals and quickly descending into a bunker mentality.

So, where does that leave us? Whilst it is depressing that all the main streams of political life in America are inadequate to the task of forming a good government, the upside is that this forces us to think creatively about a new approach. Challenges that are dynamic in nature and global in scope require leadership that is operating independently of compromises between interest groups. It requires decision making based more in what you know and less in who you know. Everybody feels their part of the elephant and a compromise decision combining everybody's feel can seem like the right answer. The problem is that in the 21st century the beast keeps growing new legs.

What manner of president and administration do we need to deliver effective government? I think we need a president who is personally responsible, independently minded, intelligent and driven to solve problems. Critically, the dynamic challenges of this century require that a president not be bound by loyalties and compromises accumulated in the process of getting elected. We need to back such a president with a cabinet that is broadly based, chosen on merit and goal focused.

In other words it needs to someone who has the right personal qualities and capacities who arrives at the White House through a side door. All the various paths to the front door lead through too many toll booths and require promises to too many trolls under too many bridges. They all deliver candidates to the door carrying the seeds of failure.

In the end I think that the candidate with the best chance of being the president we need and forming a government that can work is Barack Obama. With some very big ifs. If he can continue to fund his campaign through large numbers of small donations from non-corporate sources. If he retains his commitment to thinking things through rather the forming policies for policy's sake. If he can avoid trade off's and debts to interest groups. If (and this is the big one) he can establish a constituency for change that reaches previous non-voters. He just might pull it off and arrive at the White House door, intact, as the sort of leader we need.

Critically, Obama needs to answer his most obvious shortcoming. Namely, inexperience. I think the best response to that is to turn the question on it's head. As in, "You say that like it's a bad thing". What much of the political establishment means by, and has lived with, as "experience" is actually about connections. It's about who you know. It contains the assumption that you can't get things done unless you know people that owe you. For the problems this new president will face that sort of experience is the wrong answer.

The other, more conventional, answer to a lack of experience is to form a good team of advisers and proxies, a government in waiting with breadth and depth. Embodying in the process the idea that what matters in a president is personal qualities and capacities. That a curious intellect, a top tier capacity to synthesize and a clear set of principles matter more than detailed previous knowledge of, say, Pakistani politics or pharmaceutical cost pressures.

I think these two approaches can deal with the experience question well enough to give the candidate a shot in a general election.

So there you have it. My tortured reasoning on why the best choice is to back Obama. Now, if only everyone would agree with me would could save a couple of billion bucks and go fishing for the next 20 months.