I know: Taoism is not really a good analytic framework for US politics (largely because Taoism is, in itself, anti-analytic, but that is another story…).  Too much weirdness about keeping people uninformed and hiding the weapons and all that.

    But I sometimes slip into a Taoist mode when thinking about leadership and elections.  And when I do, I find myself gravitating toward Barak Obama as a presidential candidate.  This is not just a philosophical concern, either.  On February 2nd 5th I will vote in the Massachusetts primary.  And I will vote for Barak Obama.

   Truth in advertising: I am something of a modern, Northeastern, liberal yellow dog democrat.  I grew up with Richard Nixon and Watergate and nothing about the Republican party since then has impressed me or made me think that they should ever be given political power.  Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal was a disaster; and Bush is the worst president of the post-WWII era.  So, for me, it is simply a matter of which Democratic Party candidate to vote for.

     For a long time I was not focusing on the race, not until I watched Obama’s victory speech after the Iowa caucuses.  I was absolutely captivated.  Not in a rational, policy-wonk sort of way, but in a rhetorical, symbolic sort of way.  The man can think and speak on his feet (and that is so refreshing after so many years of such a thoughtless and bumbling stooge in the Oval Office).  He understood the moment, the fact that more eyes were watching him than ever before, and he grabbed it.  He did not belabor this or that policy position, a five point plan for whatever, but he reached for the broader vision, he painted an alluring picture, something that obviously draws in many, many people, especially young people.

    I don’t know if he will actually win the nomination.  If Hilary pulls it out I will, in yellow-dog fashion, vote for her for president (we really need a thorough house-cleaning to get rid of all Republican political appointees).  Laura pretty much nails my own discomfort with the Clintons.  And Obama himself did a nice job of turning back their negative campaigning when he intoned, at his South Carolina victory speech, that his movement is about the future not the past.  Let’s look forward to a fresh start; we don’t need the Clinton crew. 

    I think that’s what a President needs to do: provide the big picture, inspire at a more abstract level, and leave the policy details to his administrative minions.  And that is what Obama is doing. 

    To bring it back to Taoism: I would not say that Obama is a Taoist leader.  That is not the point.  Rather, he is the one who comes closest to this sentiment:

A sage’s mind is never his own:
he makes the hundred-fold people’s mind his mind.

I treat the noble with nobility
and the ignoble too:
such is the nobility of Integrity.
I treat the sincere with sincerity
and the insincere too:
such is the sincerity of Integrity.

A sage dwells within all beneath heaven
at ease, mind mingled through it all.
The hundred-fold people devote their eyes and ears,
but a sage inhabits it all like a child.

Tao Te Ching, 49

     "Child" here does not mean immature and inexperienced (the usual critiques of Obama) but, rather, an openness to the interests of others and a capacity to act without guile or selfishness.  I am not so naive to think that Obama is perfect in this regard; but I think he comes closer to the ideal of the selfless leader who allows himself to be the expression of more general, popular interests than his own personal interests.  That is what is catching fire: his Integrity, his connection to the "hundred-fold people," his ability to meet the ignoble (think of Bill Clinton’s racial politics) with nobility. 

       Obama in 08!