American Politics
Dick Stoute
Sept 2008

It is a classic battle, hot emotion versus cool reason, fight versus consensus building. The Republicans are better at the war. Driven by the belief that politics is a war, they are in their element when conflict arises and have no difficulty in upping the anti, getting more aggressive, dirtier. It suits their thinking and draws in the media and the crowds. When you are getting ready for a fight you need a “Regan” to galvanize the instinct to fight, but when you are getting ready for world leadership you need someone who can make friends, as you cannot force the rest of the world to submit.

This is a different process, one where people are brought on board, not because they hate the enemy, but because they want to be a part of a negotiated solution. They appreciate that everyone has a different view and the process of aligning all of these into a strategy and an action plan is extremely difficult. This is not an approach that a Regan or a Bush can be successful at; all they can do is declare war. That splits the world into two factions, those for you and those against you. But it also triggers hostilities at many different levels around the world and generates many repercussions.

This clash between a consensus building approach and its nemesis, the angry aggressive drive for dominance is an old conflict. History reveals many of them. In recent times we have seen the angry, fear driven, response of Middle Eastern people to the almost subconscious Western strategy of, “you are stupid and we are smart so you have to do things our way.” This very primitive approach has lead to alienation and guerilla warfare on a world scale. The 9/11 tragedies produced the largest number of casualties so far, but this is only one of many life-consuming conflicts in this continuing war.

Over the ages there have been attempts to get beyond this conflict, to get “Beyond Good and Evil.” Perhaps the best know is Jesus’s “ turn the other cheek.” This approach is directed at getting the angry aggressor calm enough to be able to move out of the war paradigm into the other, where they can appreciate that aggression is not going to produce solutions. If this is achieved then consensus building has a chance. But Jesus’s attempt was not the first. The book of Genesis talks about a Garden of Eden that exists when no one eats from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.” It also warns of the conflict that erupts if you feast from such a tree.

We have ignored this warning and built systems that exploit the simplicity of judging good and evil. Our law courts do this daily, and crime continues unabated. Our churches, especially the evangelical ones, revel in good and evil and provide fighters with the burning zeal they need to fight. Our businesses and sports also use this source of energy to drive their conflicts and sadly our politics also gets dragged into this mode of thinking. It is an easy trap, as it seems to make things simple. What could be simpler than I am good and you are bad, and therefore I have the moral high ground and everything I do is good and everything you do is bad?

Although many people have tried to move on, to understand that “judging good and evil” causes the conflict it is designed to eliminate, gains are short lived and we repeatedly get drawn back into the war paradigm. This is because all of us have an automatic self-preservation “fight” system that is triggered when we feel threatened. Our natural fear-response makes us aggressive. The conflict that results increases the level of fear. It is a positive feedback system that can easily escalate into outright warfare.

So as the Republicans bring on the aggression they increase the level of fear. The voters respond by choosing a leader that is good at war and the Republicans win the election. How can the Democrats respond to this strategy? How can you try to build consensus when there is a war being fought? The Jesus strategy of turning the other cheek does not seem feasible in this environment, so what can you do?

A bold strategy would be to set your own agenda and deal with the issues you think are important and not respond to the warlike challenges coming from the Republicans. The election is not about fighting the other party; it is about selecting someone to lead the world for the next four years. Obama seems to have the talent to do this. He is hopeless at the type of direct confrontation that the Republicans keep throwing at him, but he is great at building a consensus among those who are willing to listen.

My advice to Obama would be to expose the Republican strategy for what it is and then ignore its attempts to draw him into direct confrontation. Instead he should focus on the issues that are important for the USA and the World. The USA is at a cross roads, if it refuses to lead the world will simply find another leader, one who is capable of building a consensus about what should be done, rather than putting more troops into battle.

I think that Obama has the talent to do this, but he has to get past this election test by adopting his own strategy. If he wins by responding aggressively to the Republican challenge he will tend to respond aggressively to the other, larger challenges he will face as a president. This will be a failure. To win for America and the world he has to convince the American people that their best strategy is to forget about dominating the world and try to lead it by building consensus.