Needed: Complex Minds
A most insightful article appears in The Forum Section of USA Today. Written by Robert Kegan of Harvard, it is entitled “Wanted: A President with a Complex Mind.” Kegan’s premise, with which I concur wholeheartedly, is that we do not live in a simple world, and that simple answers that come from simple thinking and analysis not only don’t serve us well, they are dangerous.
He says, “The tragedy of the Bush presidency is not about failure; it is about a conception of success that is much too simple.”
He goes on to illustrate the point: “In the simple world, the mission is accomplished when the initial military campaign succeeds. In the real world, the invasion of Iraq involved at least five distinct and complexly interrelated campaigns: (1) winning the war; (2) securing the streets; (3) rebuilding the infrastructure; (4) rebuilding social institutions; (5) providing humanitarian relief.”
He argues that what is needed is a candidate, regardless of party or affiliation, who can go beyond “positions” to examine possibilities, learn from opposing viewpoints rather than conveniently labeling them as completely wrong, surprise us with new insights rather than the predictable sound byte and both understand and explain the world as complex rather than simple.
We need leaders in every area who possess those same abilities. A complex mind isn’t the only or even necessarily the most important skill, but it is an essential one for contemporary leaders.
Kegan reminds us that the world is a dangerous place, but the simple world–especially when this is where the leader lives–is much more dangerous.
It has always surprised me that an individual can rise to the very heights of leadership and yet exhibit the most severe form of tunnel vision. Perhaps, however, it’s not the failure of leadership that is most disturbing but, at least in our democracy, the failure of the electorate. Candidates tend to deliver sound bites because that is what the voters respond to; even demand. We require too little of our candidates in the way of substance; preferring, instead, the triteness of “it’s the economy stupid” rather than an explanation of why “it’s the economy” and, more importantly, why a particular candidate’s approach to economic policy makes more sense than their opponents. At best we get sound-bited attacks along the line of “voodoo economics”. It’s the art of the rabble-rouser disguised as political discourse. When Jon Stewart has more credibility than Charles Gibson and Paris Hilton’s jail house travails dominate the national dialogue then we really have to ask ourselves if we, as Americans, haven’t accepted our own version of the ‘bread and circuses’ policy that Imperial Rome employed to placate (and sedate) the masses.
Here’s a simple test, ask 5 of your friends to contrast Obama’s position on national health with Clinton’s or McCain’s stance on illegal immigration with Guiliani’s and then ask them to discuss the merits of Sanjaya versus Doolittle. Which were they able to discuss with more passion and knowledge?
The point is, that at the end of the day, we - meaning all Americans of voting age - have to look in the mirror and say it’s not our leaders, it’s us. Too often we get the leadership we deserve, not the leadership we need.
Here’s some fun facts to close with: in the 2000 election Bush lost the popular vote by more than 1/2 million but won in the electoral college. Democrats everywhere cried that they were robbed - and they were right, they were robbed by the 87,000,000 (that’s 87 million) voters who chose to sit out the election. Nearly 45% of eligible voters took a powder on election day. So who’s to blame? Really?
Comment by Tom Gray — June 13, 2007 @ 10:42 am