Image by jurvetson via Flickr
Frank Rich of the NYT, in his article about the historic nature of Obama’s ascendency to the Democratic Party nomination this week, points out that Obama is a new kind of politician in at least one subtle but extremely important way:
Mrs. Clinton referred to herself by the first-person pronoun 64 times in her speech, and Mr. McCain did so 60 times in his. Mr. Obama settled for 30.
Remarkably, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain had the grace to offer a salute to Mr. Obama’s epochal political breakthrough, which reverberated so powerfully across the country and throughout the world. By being so small and ungenerous, they made him look taller. Their inability to pivot even briefly from partisan self-interest could not be a more telling symptom of the dysfunctional Washington culture Mr. Obama aspires to mend.
Why is it that we seem to elect egomaniacs and narcissists to lead us? What makes these people preferable over people who are humble and truly focused on making the world a better place? Is it that the “squeeky wheel always gets greased” and the quiet (but good-hearted) person at the end of the bar always ends up going home alone? Is the “life of the party” REALLY the person you want looking after your interests?
What does it say about us that we put the very people that can do us the most harm because of their preoccupation with their own ego in charge of making life or death decisions such as going to war, reducing poverty, providing affordable healthcare, cleaning up the environment, etc?
Why can’t we elect good people rather than people who are merely preoccupied with their own goodness?
A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.
Lao Tzu
Last 2 posts in 2008 Election
- evidentally we haven't learned from history - November 10th, 2008
- how will we keep him down on the farm, now that he's seen d.c.? - November 6th, 2008
If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds
