The New President-Elect (Nov.-Dec. 2008)

Writing in my very first article regarding the momentous 2008 elections, I noted then: "But I share one thing with Mr Obama, the belief that anything is possible if we just believe it, have faith in it and act upon it. I believe in the power of thoughts to get us where we want to go and Obama has obviously been exercising his thoughts, big time!"

Twenty-one months later and President-Elect Obama has proven it beyond any doubt that there are only three things one needs in life to be successful, and none of them depend on anyone else directly. It totally depends on the individual. In order of priority, they are:

1. SELF-BELIEF. Without believing in ourselves, no one can believe in us. We have to genuinely feel we can do the job, can climb that mountain or can take charge, no matter what experience we have or where we are coming from, in order to achieve what we desire. Barack Obama might have been a 'junior Senator' but there was nothing junior about his self-belief. He was a leader waiting to to be released. Because he believed in himself so completely, he was able to take the prize when others faltered or fell behind. He was able to ignore the negativity and naysayers around him and concentrate on what he KNEW he could gain, which shows the power of his self-belief. He believed that everything was possible, even the highest political office that had been elusive to Black people like him, and set out to get it with confidence and determination, once the second crucial factor was in place - his vision

2. PERSONAL VISION: One cannot persuade others without a goal or vision to lead them towards. Having a vision, especially one that is relevant to others and to which they can relate, demonstrates what is possible, reinforces self-belief and gives the primary reason for public trust. Personal vision provides the essential purpose to lead and to take others with us. Once people can share our vision and apply it to themselves, we are almost there. For Obama his vision and purpose for running was the single word CHANGE, and a lot of voters desperately needed that change. He took one look at the presidency, decided he could do much better and then set out to do the third crucial thing - persuade others of his capability.

3. PERSUADING OTHERS: The final part of the success triangle is trying to get others to share that self-belief and vision. Obama had an uphill task given all the things against him from the very beginning, not least of all his perceived 'lack of experience' and his colour. But he managed to get a team to believe in him, then to get others to fund and endorse him and finally got the voters to put their trust in him. His own calm assurance, disciplined organisation, inspiring oratorial skills and obvious leadership qualities won others over every step of the way. All because of that self-belief and personal vision. What was happening to the country clearly wasn't working. The people felt he could do far better and voted to give him that opportunity.

Barack Obama has not only shown what is possible, he has also taught America that it doesn't take 'experience' to be the best leader. Self-belief is the greatest prelude to learning the ropes and making it happen. So long as that goal is firmly in place, believing it is attainable and showing what is possible will always inspire others, which is exactly what he did. In one master stroke he has made it easier for every other presidential candidate to show what they can do, whoever they are, because no one will be too quick to write anyone off again after his remarkable performance

Fresh from my insights into the Obama campaign, and feeling a little smug about my predictions which all came true, I thought I would make a prediction here, using my personal crystal ball (!) regarding Gov Palin. She recently said how if God presents her with an opportunity she will take it in 2012, but she will go by divine guidance to decide whether to join the presidential race again, or not. My simple advice to her would be: Pack it in and concentrate on Alaska and your children.

There are three main reasons why Sarah Palin stands no chance of making any impact on 2012.

The first is that in four years time, America would have been a completely changed place from what it is now, dominated by technological communication, by a greater sense of calm and national self confidence, by a surer sense of direction and a clearer sense of purpose. A backward and narrow thinking person like Palin will only appeal to equally backward and fossilised followers, yesterday's people, who are stuck in the past trying to recreate the good old days of religious and political fanaticism. Palin will find that her appeal is even more limited, especially if Obama's bid to be more bi-partisan and inclusive is successful and everyone is working for the common good. If most of the country falls in behind Obama's vision of unity, her support base will dwindle even more rapidly to the level of party bigots.

The second reason is that, just like Obama emerged from nowhere, we don't know which young gun is going to appear in the 2012 race to try his/her hand. Barack Obama has shown what is possible with sheer self belief. Rest assured that his success would have created many imitators who will want to try their hand at unseating him. They would have studied the essence of both his campaign and ultimate success and will want to try it for themselves. Just wait for the rush of wannabes to make themselves known. In that climate, Sarah Palin's bid, with her individual inarticulate approach, would be just a footnote.

Third is the likelihood of an even more qualified woman coming forward to be the first female president. I believe that Sarah Palin was selected as a last resort by John McCain perhaps because those who were first approached stared defeat in the face and decided to avoid it. But Sarah saw the golden opportunity to make a quick impact and took it. Except she was wholly unprepared for what was required and failed miserably. Being a woman of such ambition, she has gone back to regroup and plan new strategy. After all, the thousands spent on her clothing and the use of a private jet seemed to fit her like a glove. She'll be back for more, but the public would also have moved forward because the new president would have been showing them what was possible in that time.

With Barack Obama now raising the presidential office to a more intellectual and visionary level, he will be a hard act to follow. He would have introduced a way of governing which would be unknown to American politics, one that is more transparent, more participative and more flexible than what has gone before. Sarah Palin's divisive kind of campaign would have no place in an Obama America. She might join the 2012 race but, you heard it on Newsvine first, she has not a hope in hell of even making an impact then. She has had her 15 minutes of fame. People will always be fascinated with her, but she is so intellectually challenged that only people who are a few cells short of a brain would even think of voting for her then, or at any time. It was good while it lasted for Sarah, but I am more excited about the next credible female candidate to put herself forward in 2012 than someone so clearly unsuitable for the highest office in the land.

While I was in Chicago a week ago (gosh! is it so long already?), I spoke to quite a few Democratic supporters who were worried that the election would have been 'stolen' from Barack, etc.. They feared all kinds of foul play with the machines, the ballots and other elements. I also read daily on the Internet about how many people were being disenfranchised according to where they lived. The trouble with fear is that one can never use it to separate the reality from fantasy, but I am sure there was some justification for those anxieties.

We in Britain are not yet electronic as regards voting. But though we are a bit behind in technology, it is not easy for an election to be 'stolen' by any means, or people to be disenfranchised in any way. And what happened over this weekend at my flat demonstrated that, and also made me thankful that I do live in Britain, when it comes to voting.

Some months ago I was sent some electoral forms to be updated with my details. I did not regard them as priority so I placed them to one side and promptly forgot them. I was sent three reminders, two while I was in America. Yesterday morning (Saturday), someone buzzed my flat, politely, once. I never answer my buzzer unless I am actually expecting a visitor, as I live on my own. I peered through the window but there was no one there and I ignored it.

This morning (Sunday), another buzz at midday, which was highly unusual and which I ignored. The person was able to come into the building and rang my actual bell. I was even more curious but did nothing. They dropped something through the letter box and left. Being most curious now, I picked up the envelope and realised that the person was from the Electoral Services Register. They count us all by households and every person in that household has to be registered or deleted from the list. Not having heard anything from me via letters, someone from my district had come personally to make sure I still lived at that address, that I still had my vote, I wasn't robbed of it in any way. Best of all, no one knows who I would be voting for anyway, so these people were all civil servants paid to do their job with no axe to grind. I also guess that my being 60 years old and on my own carried some anxieties for them in case anything had happened to me. They decided to check for themselves.

The thought that someone was required to work on a Saturday and a Sunday, calling on me personally to make sure I did not lose my vote, or that I was well, was heartwarming to the extreme. As I snuggled back into bed reading the instructions on their leaflets, I had a broad smile of thanks that I lived in l'il ole England. We might not be so technologically advanced yet (we're getting there slowly!) but there are still certain inalienable rights we have and, thanks to our democratic system, ways of ensuring them, and respect for personal privacy, very few people would lose those rights. We don't have any fears of elections being lost or any kind of foul-play. We simply exhort people to vote and leave it in he lap of the gods.

I will reply to them tomorrow.

America appears to be unique in sentencing confused and wayward teenagers to life imprisonment and throwing away the key, especially if they're black. But nothing could be worse for the future and social wellbeing of any nation than to virtually give up on its youngsters.

Children are our future - every child - not just the privileged ones. Whether they are free or imprisoned, their actions will decide the kind of world we end up with when they are adults. Encouraging an army of deviant youngsters to be incarcerated forever in jail, especially when peer pressure would have had a hand in their behaviour, not only alienates and embitters those serving time, but also the army of relatives who have to suffer with them too, forever. That's an awful lot of unhappiness and anxiety for communities to continually cope with. Never having the opportunity to atone for that crime in more positive ways. Most important, the essence of life is hope. When someone is robbed of that hope, they lose their value and the main reason to live.

The emphasis seems to be on punishment, punishment, punishment. But, as the best prisons in Norway show, punishment is combined with education and rehabilitation of the offender. Like military action, punishment can only go so far when someone is young, and is usually not very effective, as the re-offenders rate demonstrate with alarming regularity. The key should be rehabilitation, education and self-awareness. Giving those youngsters other viewpoints on how their life could be and improving the life chances they were already denied. In, effect, changing that person's perspective sufficiently for them to not only impact on the quality and direction of their own life, but also to make a difference to others through their own contribution.

A youngster of 14 needs emphasis on their emotional health, a key area of life which is given little attention in our world. At that age they have a natural overriding need to be appreciated, significant, valued and to belong. To be validated and reinforced as people. Hence why they gravitate towards friends, groups and gangs. But the downside of that is they are more vulnerable to pressure from others to be deviant and more easily to be manipulated, especially when they feel excluded and unwanted. Then they spend the rest of their life regretting their actions.

It was Muhammad Ali who said: "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." Precisely. Sentencing someone virtually for the rest of their life deliberately ignores their natural evolution. Very few people still pose a threat to society when they are in their 30s and 40s, no matter how badly they behaved as kids. Natural maturity and emotional growth ensure that their views on life inevitably change, while education and intellectual development bring greater maturity as they age. It means that yesterday's wayward youngster has every opportunity to be tomorrow's model citizen with a little bit of awareness, encouragement and motivation.

Lone objector in protecting children
That is why I am in entire agreement with the justice meted out to the two young 10 year old boys in 2001, who cruelly murdered James Bulger in the UK some years ago, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. They served only 8 years of their sentence before being granted parole. Their being in prison for life would not bring Jamie back, but changing their lives for the better can prevent them killing someone else. I believe that is far more important than continuous retribution for the sake of it. Compare that to American Ashley Jones who committed two equally horrific murders at 14 and was sentenced to life, which means life. Her own grandmother, who was injured as well in the attacks, believes Ashley, now 23, deserves a second chance as she is not the person she was at 14. Of course she wouldn't be because that is what growing up and evolving is all about. Life is a journey, not a single event, and we change with every step through our experiences and social education. The mere fact that we start off as babies and end up as adults show that we are forever growing and learning.

Incredibly, the United States was the 'lone dissenter ' in December 2006 when the United Nations proposed a resolution calling for the abolition of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for children and young teenagers. The vote was 185 to 1, with only America holding out. Very tragic that. Forgiveness and love lie at the heart of our society. Take them away and what we have are emotionally damaged shells seeking constant revenge under the thin veneer of 'justice', while slowly robbing our future of the greatest potential and asset it has to make our world a better place - our children.

Emotional health is one key part of the health triangle: physical, mental and emotional. In fact, our emotional wellbeing dictates the other two areas, yet gets the least attention because it is not understood, neither are its effects appreciated, especially on the young. We urgently need new approaches to punishment because Britain also has the highest rate of incarceration in Europe, yet youth crime is actually on the increase, getting more uncaring and vicious. Addressing the state of teenage emotional health and changing the automatic knee-jerk punishment reaction is now a priority. Otherwise we will all suffer in the end as our ignorance and desire for revenge continually breed, and reinforce, a nation of resentful deviants.

Recently an eight year old was accused of double murder of his father and a lodger in Arizona. Let's see what happens now. Do you imprison an eight year old for life?

If Barack Obama wanted to offer Hillary Clinton a job, will he be doing so after her public behaviour regarding his intention? The one thing her reaction, and that of her supporters, showed recently was that there would be two points of focus at the White House, not one, should she join his Cabinet in such a highly visible role as Secretary of State.

Like everyone else, Hillary was called very quietly for a private discussion, whatever the content was. Reporters and observers were quite free to assume what they like regarding that meeting. However, by allowing her staff to leak content from the discussion, and a massive media debate to follow, it deliberately aimed to put the new President-elect in a situation where he would have to give her what she wanted. Her reaction was so stark, compared to the other contenders who were also called for a chat, it would have been troubling to those trying to mend the fences to actually have Hillary on the team. I would hazard a guess that they discussed a number of potential openings for her but she deliberately focused on that one perhaps because that's the main one she wants.

While all the other candidates under consideration have been absolutely mum on their chats with the transition team, remaining entirely stoic and diplomatic about what might have transpired, as it should be, with Hillary Clinton it was entirely different. She was still acting presidential. One could sense an orchestrated effort by sources close to Clinton to already anoint her in the job, most likely with the aim of surreptitiously forcing Barack's hand. But that would not have been a very clever thing to do. Barack Obama is the man in charge, and also likes to do things his way. He will do what he thinks is right. Yet she was still acting as though she was in control. All she had to say was "No comment" and forbade any discussion on the issue until everything was sealed and signed, to allow the President-elect to announce anything himself. The very nature of so many pages being written and said about a job that has not yet been offered would have demonstrated what he fears most: two de facto presidents in the White House instead of one, should she get such a high profile role. She would continue to be a law onto herself, doing what she pleased.

I think what happened after their meeting would have alarmed him somewhat, which is probably why they hastily released the fact that there were four people in contention for the Secretary of State's position, not just one, and that they are also vetting her husband's overseas connections too, in order to regain the initiative. I think she might now be placed somewhere else, if only to show that she would be one of a 'team' and not a sole player, as she seems to be behaving, and to also emphasise who is actually the new president, in case she still has any illusions!

November 22, 2008 marks the 18th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher being forced to leave Downing Street. She had no intention of leaving, but the numbers were stacked against her in an ambush while she was abroad at a meeting. Rushing back to England, she realised that her power had gone, her allies had deserted her and she was yesterday's leader. She cried her eyes out when she was leaving her beloved Number 10 because she saw herself being there on and on. The irony was that the very thing that propelled her to the top, to being known as one of the fiercest and most effective leaders Britain had (The Iron Lady) was what proved to be her downfall: her strong self-belief, personal confidence, inflexible style of leadership and being the only vulnerable woman at the top of the political tree in a very clear man's world.

The one thing about being older is that one has lived through the very history younger people read about, or can only surmise. A reader is only ever likely to get the broad strokes of the historical brush, the summaries and the significant events. They will never get the full impact of the aches and pains, the joys and sorrows, the machinations and the rivalry because those were precariously routine, and do not translate well into history. It would take too long to recount them and they also lose their flavour, tension and emotion in the retelling. When I read about her resignation these days, as though she calmly agreed to stand down, I smile to myself because the days leading up to that resignation were sheer terror for Margaret Thatcher as those she trusted and elevated turned against her, one by relentless one, and refused to back her re-election.

I was a child of the Tory era. Apart from a brief three year respite, my formative years in Britain were dominated by the Tories and Thatcherite individualistic philosophy - the 'me' culture (1970 to 1997). When I arrived in Britain in 1967, a starry-eyed youngster of 19, Harold Wilson (Labour Party) was Prime Minister for three years. Then the Tories rolled in. I lived through the effects of the economic recession and social turmoil Thatcher inherited in 1979, the lawless unions, the interminable miners strike with regular blackouts and reading by candlelight, the relentless conflict between her and Arthur Scargill (the mineworkers leader) for power and domination, and her very firm hand in taking Britain slowly out of its crisis, moving the country from a virtual welfare state to a capitalist one. Though I admired her achievements (they were tremendous for the time), I didn't like her at all because I felt that, in order to succeed, she not only had to be more of a man than her colleagues around her, but she also kept women down in politics - the only Prime Minister without female Cabinet ministers; to ostensibly show that she wasn't 'weak' and she was appointing the 'best' persons for the job. It makes me wonder whether Barack, in order to truly succeed, will have to be 'whiter' than the presidents who preceded him as well!

Common Characteristics
On the face of it, she and Barack Obama share very little, but seven things stand out between them:
1. They were the first of their kind (gender, race) at a time when they were not expected to triumph.
2. They were both legally trained (she a barrister, he a lawyer).
3. Both had leadership roles within their well-known universities (Oxford, Harvard),
4. Both are confident, eloquent and persuasive speakers,
5. Both have a strong vision of what they wanted and where they were going.
6. Both were very popular when elected leader and have formidable leadership qualities.
7. Both took over a country in an economic mess and had to deal with international conflict (Iraq, the Falklands)

In both their ways, they are admirably equipped as leaders to make an impact and succeed where many others failed because of their singular, unbending and disciplined personalities. However, what really brought Margaret Thatcher down was the fact that the skills she exhibited in taking Britain out of its turmoil in her first seven years were not the ones necessary in the last four years and she failed to see that. Blinded by her own ideals and competence, she could not adapt to a 'peacetime' Britain and its needs. The people turned against her because, having been successful with many policies during the first two terms of her premiership, she stopped listening and decided she knew best, sadly an affliction of powerful leaders overwhelmed by their own ideology. She insisted on introducing a national council tax (dubbed the 'poll tax') in every area which most of the country thought was unreasonable. Regardless of the nationwide protests, the expert advice and the surveys which showed that many Tories would lose their seats at the next election because of this tax, she steadfastly continued regardless. In the end, her colleagues challenged her leadership and forced her out.

The Desire for Change
The trouble with strong personalities who know how to lead is that, at some point, they stop listening because they think they have all the answers. They always want to do more because success breeds desire for more success. When Thatcher came to power, Britain was in a time of economic and political turmoil, with the government nearly bankrupt, employment on the rise, and conflicts with the unions. By the time she left, communism had been routed internationally, Britain was a pretty stable place on its way to much prosperity, with individual success (the 'yuppie' culture) being significant of Thatcherite philosophy. But she couldn't leave well alone - the main problem with people of vision: their vision ends up taking them over, regardless of the reality. Britain had changed, thanks to Margaret, from being on its knees and in hock to the unions, to standing tall on its own feet. Unfortunately, once we change, we desire something different!

Barack might not fall into the Thatcher trap of inflexibility but, if all goes well in the first term, there is always a danger that he would use the same perspectives, mindsets and ideology to govern in the second term, and with even more determination, especially when the country would have changed positively because of his first term actions. Perhaps the fact that he can only do two terms will limit that kind of narrow approach and save him from what I call the 'Thatcher Effect', whereas Thatcher expected to be re-elected over and over without end.

There is no question at this early stage that Barack Obama has the potential to be one of America's greatest presidents - its Iron Man, in fact. Only his fearful critics will refute his leadership talents. He knows where America should be going and he can't wait to take her there. But will his ability to see America out of its crisis also blind him to what is required to enhance it further down the line? Will he seek to change its markets, its approach, the values it currently holds dear, for example, for something else he genuinely believes to be more beneficial to the common good, but which might be highly resisted and become his undoing?

Only time will tell, of course.

I think he is. There has been a lot of angst, and disappointment, this past week, especially among Obama supporters, regarding the appointment of Hillary Clinton, but I think it is misplaced. In fact, one supporter even go as far as saying, "McCain chose Palin for political purposes -- and you saw where it got him. Obama has chosen Hillary for political purposes, and I fear it will derail his foreign policy and allow a nest of snakes to seethe next to his office". She felt saying her objections out loud was the only way she could protest.

It did not surprise me at all that she was in the Cabinet. I was only surprised by the post she was offered because I think that is too high a profile for her, given the rivalry between them and their major personalities. Hillary was always going to be in the picture, especially after the support she and her husband gave Obama in the last couple of months, not to mention the huge supporter base she has. The Clintons do not do anything for the sake of it and I did wonder, during the campaign, what was the real cost of their support! :o(

Many people mistakenly believe that CHANGE means everything changing in an instant, expecting too much too quickly. If that happened, and Obama started from base, so to speak, the government would collapse after a short time. Long term change is always gradual, never immediate, to avoid causing intense loss or damage of some sort. Change has to have a foundation too, so one cannot jettison the past to get it. If the past was all that bad, we wouldn't have achieved the incredible things we have done so far. The past is crucial for laying that foundation, for choosing what was right and wholesome in order to achieve the change one seeks.

Real change is building brick by brick, changing past actions gently to make a better future, which is exactly what he is doing just now. It is thus unrealistic to expect the President-elect to start from scratch with everything, just because he is for 'change', when he has to change things gradually to maintain the natural balance and equilibrium of what is there already. It means that as long as he employs experienced and new people, with more new than old, he is on the right path to achieving what he wants and getting the results he desires. Sooner or later, the 'new' staff he employs will be the ones in power. Then things will begin to happen in a more noticeable way.

Barack Obama can look after himself pretty well, that is the reason why he is president. He doesn't need anyone to fret and worry about him. He just needs their trust. They believed he could do the job, that's why they elected him to do it. They are not in his hot seat. They have to stop worrying about every decision he makes, to accept that he won't do everything to their liking, and allow him to get on with his job the way he sees fit. He doesn't have the fears that other people have and so will be much bolder and adept in getting what he wants. Hillary might be the price he has to pay for unity and bringing more people over to his side, to give him the time and space he needs to become his own man. But I predict great things after the first two years.

The real litmus test will come in a few months time when he has learned the ropes, has a bit of executive experience under his belt and starts shedding people and appointing new ones - the kind of people he genuinely wants to spread his particular message. Then we're likely to see the real Barack Obama and exactly what he had in mind. These early days are just window-dressing, keeping most sides pacified to unify the country. Patience, dear folks, is a most valuable virtue.

I remember asking my favourite question (how much someone would rate their looks out of 10) to a high achiever with nagging self-doubts. Back came the reply that it would be “Only six” because he was “not as good looking as Tom Cruise or Richard Gere”. But I did not compare him to those actors. He did. I asked him a simple question about his perception of himself. It was his own low perception of his value and his impossible standard of comparing himself to others with whom he has little connection, using a narrow standard of acceptability, which was keeping him from fully appreciating how wonderful he was too.

Many people of low esteem have a negative perception. This encourages them to live their lives comparing themselves to others in a futile and unrealistic way, instead of valuing themselves with all their imperfections and acknowledging their own uniqueness and strengths. Not surprisingly, they will never feel good about themselves against such impossible yardsticks, neither will others feel good around them either.

The true essence of personal perception and its individual bias becomes obvious in the notion of leadership. There is the tendency to believe that leaders lead and followers follow and that we personally are effective and efficient leaders (using current benchmark as a guide), but our intended followers may have a very different perception of what leadership should be. We might think we are leading but very few people might be following! It does not matter whose perception is ‘right’. What does matter is that we perceive and we believe. Perception is the truth in our reality. That’s all we have. The fact that people can perceive the same thing differently must therefore become an integral part of the decision-making process for all workplaces, and also be fully acknowledged in the domestic routine.

In short, if a person perceives a certain situation relating to him/her, that will be the only perception which will be initially accepted, not the perception of another, and this has huge implications for social interactions, workplaces and relationships. We cannot impose our own perception on others as their reality. That only leads to confusion, anger, resentment and a feeling of not being heard or valued. The truth of any situation has to be negotiated according to individual perceptions. To ignore the importance of this perceptual process in our lives is to ignore a major determinant of all behaviour which is at the root of much misunderstanding (in relationships), much prejudice (in interactions) and discrimination (in work and society).

Our value of anything in life, especially our bodies, depends purely on how we perceive it. How it appears to us, not to anyone else. That is why it is so difficult to convince anyone of anything when they genuinely cannot 'see' it for themselves.

By the way, if he had asked me that question, my reply would have been '11'! :o)

Obama And The Media: What Press Bias?

What does Barack Obama need to do in the first 100 days of his presidency?