The Dark Side of Heroism: Is John McCain "the Man"?

In my second to most recent blog I held forth the idea of two parallel but distinct elements to consider in deciding how to vote--"issues" and "impressions about the person." What follows are reasons for why I will not vote for John McCain based on my impressions of him, not on the issues. I have noticed four specific personal traits that trouble me: 1) goose-step patronizing, 2) deficient thinking processes, 3) maverick leadership, and, 4) playing dumb. Trait number one: Goose-step patronizing (emphasis on the goose-stepping) Barack Obama does not fail to make sharp attacks on McCain's positions on issues and his voting record, but he also makes a point of recognizing McCain’s personal integrity and his heroic military service. McCain on the other hand tops off his criticisms of Obama's stands with repeated personal attacks, questioning his integrity and his patriotism, even his intelligence. And he gave Sarah Palin the sic ‘em signal. As we have seen with the Bush/Rumsfeld "torture" issue, the man at the top sets the spawning environment or culture for his followers. Recently the crowds McCain and Palin were drawing turned to ugly taunts. McCain's followers were aping their leader, though in a more uncouth and scary way. McCain quickly tried to tone them down, apparently sensing that a "negative approach" that shows its underwear can backfire. We'll see if he can shut off the tap that he opened. I think what turned the taunters loose was McCain’s patronizing demeanor toward Obama. Recognizing the potential damage of disdain-turned-spiteful, McCain made the remarkable statement that Obama is a decent man, and he would not be scared of him as President. But over the past weeks McCain has orally and visibly cultivated the message that he does not respect the man, his recent corrective notwithstanding. The conventional wisdom of campaigns holds that negative attacks close to election night are a very effective approach for the one trailing. I think the reason the conventional wisdom is not working this time is that McCain’s “attitude” toward Obama has sounded a call to the fringe element in the party to come out of the woodwork and reveal their vengeful spirit. People are recognizing that this is the dark side of the “feistiness” in McCain and Palin, and are uncomfortable with it. I think McCain’s plea to his rowdy followers to cool it will prove abortive, because on Monday he was right back at it. His speech was a fight song. A journalist counted 18 times that McCain used the word “fight,” or “fighter.” Now that Iraq has dropped to second place behind the economy as top concern to the American people, he takes the theme that defines his personhood and transfers it to the new crisis. The way out of the economic crisis, he says, is to "fight"; and, as we are to know from his “record,” he knows how to fight and will lead us in the fight, while Obama is a dangerous neophyte. McCain is a one dimensional man who interprets those who extend outside his dimension (Obama) as "just not getting it." Obama's sunny disposition seems to torment those in the shadows.. (You may see the obvious contrast in Obama's memoirs.) Then take notice of the "McCain approved" robo-phone calls his campaign is sending out that equates Obama with terrorists (the same technique that Bush used to find Saddam Hussein responsible for the 9/11 attack.) Republican party leaders are not very good at connecting dots. McCain claims Obama has not "come clean" on his relationship to Bill Ayers. Obama has come clean, more than once. There is nothing there. If there were more to it, McCain would come up with it, for sure. That he hasn't is the clue. He ignores Obama's response and repeats the charge as if Obama's explanation automatically is of no consequence. John McCain is known for his distemper, and we saw in the first debate that he is not good at disguising his feelings when upset. I was jarred by the effrontery McCain showed toward Obama in the first presidential debate. His demeanor and his words combined for particular ill effect when he, as son and grandson of two Admirals, himself an Annapolis graduate and prisoner-of-war in Hanoi, with lifted chin, lectured Obama about military terminology. Obama, the naive young man, he said, does not understand the difference between strategy and tactics--which leads to my second point. Trait number two : Deficient thinking processes. When McCain jumps on a bull that begins to buck, he refuses to let go. Is this that “fighting spirit” that separates heroes from quitters, or is it the "state of denial" mechanism that clicks in when thinking processes are weak? The first answer is attractive because McCain's combativeness can be admirable in a way; but I am settling into the second version. Either way--impulse or mental dyslexia--affects the quality of ones judgments. Both stubbornness and/or confusion lead to bad decisions. I’m not being flippant; I’m serious. I’ll give two prominent examples. McCain said the surge strategy is winning the war in Iraq (the bucking bull), and in his own administration he will continue this Bush strategy to win in Afghanistan and beat terrorism. He said Obama’s opposition to the surge indicates that Obama considers the surge to have been only an incident, a tactic in the bigger war. Actually, McCain is the one who has it backward. Tactics are adjustments in the field as the battles progress. Strategy, on the other hand, oversees the complexity of factors and sets out the principles guiding toward victory in the long run. McCain thinks Bush‘s war plan only needed adjusting in the field. He seems determined to carry this error in thinking into his own administration, as the basis of his war policy as President. General George Washington, in another war, knew better. A number of times Washington implemented the tactic of retreat in order to succeed at the greater strategy of keeping his undermanned army from being captured. Running does not mean the end of fighting, nor does standing ground at the end of the day mean the war is won. McCain will gain no succor for his Iraq position from Washington’s wisdom and “experience.” And I tremble at the thought of our next commander-in-chief not knowing the difference between strategy and tactics. One may not expect G.W. Bush to have learned this lesson in the national guard, but McCain should not be given a pass on it. I find it hard to believe that a graduate of Annapolis and a student of war operations after returning from Vietnam would want to “muddle on” (a phrase McCain used earlier to characterize Bush) in Iraq in confusion about so critical a military principle. Even our generals, at least those who kept quiet about their misgivings until they retired or were relieved of command, don’t gloss over the problems with the Bush strategy. I’ve noticed that both General Petreus and Secretary Gates are careful to stay out of politics and steer clear of Bushspeak. Fight is McCain‘s game, geopolitics is not. I would want McCain beside me in battle and I would want him as my cell mate in a war prison, but he is like a fighter who has been too long in the ring . I admire a fighter, but there is more at stake than heroic determination can handle. That is why boxers need handlers. McCain is a boxer. Trait number three: Maverick leadership Another example of his quality of thinking is his fixation about being a “maverick.” This is a major tactical mistake if you think about it. Do we really want a maverick as President? By definition a maverick is “an unbranded calf . . . separated from its mother.”-- “a lone dissenter. . . who stands apart from his or her associates.” A maverick does not turn to the other cows to bring them along. A maverick doesn’t attend to the common needs; that is what makes him stand out. A maverick has all the appearances of liking it that way. And in the true spirit of a maverick, McCain revels in this. Now I think mavericks serve a good purpose, as a check on the herd mentality. A maverick may prove to be an important, beneficial pivot point. But when the maverick adopts this quality as a hallmark of leadership he becomes a sticking point. I admire McCain’s stands against some of his fellow politicians’ follies, but in the bigger game of team leadership, he needs to drop the term, with its clearly negative connotations. But again his muddleheadedness about ideas leads him into not only confused articulation but also bad judgment. Namely, I can’t believe the disjunction he adopts by pointing to how his maverick reputation is evidence of how he will “reach across the aisle” as President and bring the country together. This is an oxymoron. Secondly, he is so proud of the idea of maverick that he chose a poster child maverick for his running mate, not realizing the danger to both his party and his campaign. As Palin has shown, a maverick untethered becomes a loose cannon. For one example, did you hear her answer when asked about what she planned to do in the Vice Presidency? Someone needs to loan her a copy of the Constitution. She is scarier than Cheney. As we have seen, other mavericks are coming out of the woodwork at McCain and Palin appearances, and as I mentioned, McCain yesterday had to backflip to reject their stylistic suggestions. So much for that “strategy.” Trait number four: Playing dumb My fourth sample of muddled thinking goes more directly to the question of intention. This gets dicey, because I hesitate to call anyone a liar. Language is slippery, and it is easy to judge without considering circumstantial pressures. I have thought Bush walks blithely in the arena of dishonesty simply because he convinces himself that his untruths actually are true. I think McCain speaks dishonestly at times for a different reason. I avoid calling him a liar by assuming he just doesn’t understand what he has said and thinks he has a point when it just doesn’t add up. (At times I have a lot of trouble holding onto my generous concession.) To be specific, McCain repeatedly says Obama will raise taxes. Boom. This is a half-truth. But half-truths, when wrapped in whole-truth packaging, are whole-truth claims--half-truths rounded up to untruths when trotted out. That is like saying Doug drives an old 1986 pickup truck, so watch out for him--as if that is all I drive. Wham. And, as Palin would say, he pals around with that redneck pickup driver that lives near him. Double whammy. To wit, Obama has said his tax plan will raise taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year. So we all had better watch out because “Obama will raise taxes.” Parading as 100% true this statement is a ¼ truth, or less. What portion of the population make that much or more? I'm told it is 5%. Is McCain confused or is he deceptive? My theory that he is confused requires a constantly running sump pump because this is not an isolated sample of McCainspeak. One litmus test for determining where McCain is prone to deception is to look directly at what he chooses to repeat as mantra in his campaign speeches. Where he is most assertive seems to be where he is most incorrect and muddled. The newest melody is "Joe the Plumber." It turns out that Joe is not a "licensed" plumber and has not personally filed for work permits in the county where he works; and if he intends to make $250,000 a year as a business owner now, he will be able to afford a tax increase. I'd welcome the chance to be able to afford a tax increase along with Joe, but this comports with Obama's plan. If McCain thought he was showing how concerned he is about the common, blue collar American by championing Joe who will make that kind of money, he needs to take off his dark glasses. Even if Joe were licensed, it is Obama's plan, not McCain's that would have helped him back when he was a lowly working stiff like you and I. McCain needs to fire his staff members who (don't) vet his choices for poster children. But apparently it would not matter, because McCain seems to gravitate toward things that make little sense because they "don't make sense"--that is what maverick, muddled thinking does to a person who looks down his nose at the 95% who have not "made it" following the rules. McCain shows the same kind of odd glee in playing up Joe the Plumber that he oozed in elevating Sarah the Governor. It is as if he thought he had come up with the ultimate irrefutable answer for all the unpatriotic nuancers who don't put "country first," those who pal around with socialists. Sarah is not ready, and Joe is not "just" a plumber (as McCain classifies Joe’s salary). If they were, McCain, the maverick, would not have chosen to highlight them. When he thinks he makes the most sense, his mental dyslexia shines brightest. He has to play dumb when he should know better, in order to convince those who don't know better to think he is clever. I don’t think he is sinister (a tag he tries to pin on Obama), I just think he has "personal" processing weaknesses. Colin Powell struck the right tone last weekend in his endorsement of Obama. McCain's campaign, he said, has been all about personal attack when we should be focusing on the critical issues we face as a nation. This military man well above McCain in rank, and statesman with more significant executive experience, judges that as for leadership, Obama has displayed more steadiness and sound judgment. With my above catalog of McCain's defective thought processes, I’m not saying he is unintelligent. I just think the way he puts things together leads him into statements and decisions that are unsound.

The Anatomy of Un-Charisma

The following highlights weaknesses in John McCain's personality: 1) his habit of insinuation, 2) his incivility, 3) his fighting instinct. Closing with an overall assessment of the man. Issue Number One: The habit of insinuation Insinuations are like dandelion seeds launched into the wind. McCain’s campaign train is freighted with implications that Barack Obama is an unpatriotic black man who, if not out to destroy us, is at least over his head. And should you run out of insinuations, you can elevate to innuendo. Recently McCain launched into a litany of questions about "what we don't know" about the inexperienced upstart. But if the potent combination of insinuation and patronizing don't carry the day, there are always half-truths in reserve. Half-truths rounded up to the nearest truth become lies when asserted firmly. At this level Cindy McCain stepped forth to turn up the heat. Last week she accused Obama of opposing the funding of the troops. And, with a catch in her voice, she referred to her son who, with Obama's vote, would be abandoned under fire to die a fiery death in Iraq. Actually Obama did vote for the funding. Then Bush vetoed the bill. Who is abandoning whom? (Bush has been widely castigated for trying to fight the war "on the cheap," and if McCain wants an example of someone who doesn't "put his country first," many would say Bush is a case in point.) At this level Cindy McCain stepped forth to turn up the heat. Last week she accused Obama of opposing the funding of the troops. And, with a catch in her voice, she referred to her son who, with Obama's vote, would be abandoned under fire to die a fiery death in Iraq. Actually Obama did vote for the funding. Then Bush vetoed the bill. Who is abandoning whom? (Bush has been widely castigated for trying to fight the war "on the cheap," and if McCain wants an example of someone who doesn't "put his country first," many would say Bush is a case in point.) Key to understanding this funding drama is distinguishing strategy from tactics. Funding is tactical support; withdrawal is a strategic decision. Bush demanded that Congress yield strategy to him. On the funding, Congress (and Obama) said fine, but proclaimed its superior authority on strategy formulation. Bush’s veto, based on holding onto strategy determination, was an attempt at blackmail. This was not just a “political” fight; it was high drama over fundamental constitutional matters. The facts tell the story. The bill would have funded the troops along with a stipulation for a withdrawal schedule. By vetoing the bill, Bush (and McCain Republicans) struck a blow at the Constitution which puts ultimate strategy in the hands of Congress. The President's constitutionally assigned duty is to "administer" policy, and in military matters he is given "chief" command in order to carry out the administering. His role in wartime strategy rests on the strength of his persuasion--he has to “ask“ Congress for a declaration of war or support for emergency measures. Congress, as the people's voice (most recently measured by the vote in 2006), holds the trump card. In vetoing the funding bill, Bush played his ace. Congress then softened its wording (caved in) about withdrawal and kept its trump card in pocket. The issues of constitutional authority and strategy versus tactics take a little sophisticated awareness, but do not tax ones brain. The events were played out before us in plain sight, and the Constitution is an easy read. Echoing John, Cindy’s remark that Obama does not support the troops is not even a half-truth. I can’t expect an heiress to understand the Constitution or military terminology (strategy/tactics), but she should pay more attention to the sequence of events played out before us in the news every night. (But she sleeps with the man who is confused and probably listens in on the 3:00.am. phone conversations.) In both the first and second funding bill, Obama's position supported the troops because both bills provided the necessary funding. To continue to say Obama does not support the troops is to throw two birds at one stone (I intentionally inverted the metaphor)--thwarting the Commander-in-Chief, and lacking patriotism--both of them missing the mark. I won’t judge whether Cindy intentionally muddied the water, but she knows how to insinuate masterfully too, echoing John's assertion that Obama wants to "wave the flag of surrender" to those who want to kill us. She employed the ultimate put-down (accusing Obama of wanting to betray his country) by emotionally politicizing her son’s Iraq assignment. She certainly did her son no favor by putting him in this position (a soldier who is the son of a prominent leader). John should know something about this from his experience in Hanoi. Not to be outdone by Cindy's imputational skills, John insists that Obama has not "come clean" on the Bill Ayers relationship, even though Obama has laid out the thin particulars openly. Here is another sample of the malice of insinuation. Suggesting there is life in a dead story amounts to obfuscation; and obfuscation works well as the shabby coat for slander. Insinuation is the tailor for a handsome cloak of deception. Issue Number Two: Incivility If Cindy McCain is a good mirror reflecting her husband's message and persona, Michelle Obama is equally representative of her spouse. On “Larry King Live” last week, Larry asked Michelle about Hillary Clinton (the Democrat's version of the "witch from the North"). Michelle was nothing but a model of regard and respect for her husband's former insulting nemesis. And when Larry asked her about John's alleged "put down" in last week's debate where he attacked Obama on an issue. Without looking at his opponent McCain pointed and said, "that one." Some took this as a racial code word for "slave boy," but Michelle dismissively said she did not take it that way at all. She brushed aside McCain's alleged personal antipathy, and said that kind of thing does not upset her nor her husband. Barack, she said, is not an angry black man. He does not take such slurs as either racial or as personal. Even if Michelle was just trying to come across as congenial, it sends a message of maturity. McCain either isn't able to don a cover of congeniality or intentionally declines to, which also sends a clear message. Issue Number Three: The “Fighter” I think McCain's problem is that he is locked into an outdated Cold War global vision, one where the contest is between "us" and "them"--them being a powerful nation state (Russia) in contest with us on the same international plane. To win, we fight it out on the battlefield where soldiers prove their mettle and become heroes by sacrificing their lives for their country. Times have changed, but one thing is constant. The President needs to be more than a military man. McCain has his feet planted firmly with eyes focused on the enemy before him. Obama has a wider stance and better field intelligence. Obama is a phenomenon and a marking point in American history. To him, a black man, race is no longer an issue. He is an American running for President, as is his opponent. In my judgment he is the more mature personality of the two and as a leader he has a more wiry grip along with his wider stance. I secure my point with an historical parallel—the Cuban Missile Crisis. All "issues" aside, consider the leadership style and effectiveness of John Kennedy during this Crisis. I am glad that John Kennedy, whose leadership brand Obama emulates, was in charge rather than Teddy Roosevelt, McCain's acknowledged hero. Roosevelt (as Bush and McCain interpret him) would have been a disaster in facing down Kruschev. Interestingly, I penned the above paragraph a couple days ago. As I type now I am listening to McCain using the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of his own "tested" leadership. Again, I am staggered at his profound reasoning. Responding to Joe Biden's remark that the new President will likely be "tested" early in the new administration, McCain said he has already been tested. During the Cuban Missile Crisis he was sitting in his fighter jet "ready" to fly. What? Readiness to fly on command is tested leadership? What kind of parallel is this? Overall Assessment of McCain's Persona What I see in watching the debates and reading Obama's book is a man who is well informed even where one might disagree with his conclusions, a man who is congenial and engaging, in contrast to his opponent who displays his personal dislike, and articulates his disrespect on stage and to the cameras. Noteworthy is the testimony of Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell in last week's Newsweek magazine. Caldwell is the pastor of the black megachurch in Houston who was the "introducer" of George W. Bush to the Republican Convention of 2000, and who gave the invocation at both Bush Inaugurations, but who now is an active and energetic promoter of Obama for President. I would not be surprised if Caldwell agrees with me that McCain’s personality is a leadership handicap and a potential problem for the nation. McCain deserves the highest praise for enduring the torture, the accusations and ridicule imposed on him in the Hanoi prison, and he merits great honor for supporting his cellmates and sacrificing 5-1/2 years of his life for his country. But he is still fighting those old demons. He felt the pain from the military's failure to "win" in Vietnam, and he understandably does not want any soldiers in Iraq to be impaled as he was in a losing fight. His perception of today's new kind of war, though, is limited by his personal, searing experiences and colored by the military traditionalism of his father and grandfather, whose careers worked out better for them than for him. McCain's "experience" is hemmed in by psychological and personal issues. He wins my empathy but not my confidence. Obama is not without experience. What he is without is McCain's military orientation. In his memoirs Obama, displays a balanced wisdom and a geopolitical grasp of international affairs, including the threat of terrorism in broader terms, and, yes, a winning strategy, recognizing that "armies" are necessary, but serve specialized purposes. No one who is naive could have written these pages. I have not heard McCain describe foreign policy with anything near Obama's impressive grasp of history, his cutting-edge sense of direction of the future, and an optimism about what is realistically possible to accomplish. One last comment. On watching the three debates, I have no doubt that McCain has an IQ fully sufficient for the job of President. But Obama, I suggest, has a much higher EQ. If you are familiar with Daniel Goleman's books on emotional intelligence, you know what I am saying. I know of another study that looked at CEO'S of big companies. It concluded that most successful CEO's are high in EQ rather than IQ. People with a high IQ tend to be misfits.

The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Key to Understanding John McCain

After his well noted remark about being "tested" in the Cuban Missile Crisis, McCain is back at it today. I guess no one pulled him aside and pointed out the nonsensicalness of his attempt to “use” this international incident to win votes. Today he reiterated how his role in that crisis demonstrates why he should be President. His role was to sit in his fighter jet on the deck of the USS Enterprise, waiting for the command to roll. That was quite a “test” of leadership. Does he not know the difference between a “leader” and a “follower”? As you may see from my lengthy criticisms of McCain, I waver back and forth trying to decide if he is intentionally deceptive or if he is often confused. I decline to say he is unintelligent, and I don’t want to think he is purposefully misleading us. This leaves me only with his confusion. But I have come up with another, maybe better option. I had two “insights” this week that seem to synchronize. A comment in a book I’m reading leaped off the page (Wrestling with the Angel of Democracy). The author, Susan Griffin, makes a distinction between information and knowledge. She said: " [There is a] difference between information and knowledge. . . . Lacking stories, frames, concepts, histories, discussions, a background through which significance can be felt, information descends easily into a free fall of nonsensical associations. . . . [For example] it is possible to use the word freedom like a rallying call for a football team, without any irony, as a rationale for depriving other citizens of their rights. In this usage, freedom loses its meaning entirely." (p. 149). McCain and Palin are full of these rally calls of "nonsensical associations." When Obama "nuances" his explanations, he is, as Griffin would say it, turning information into meaningful "understanding carefully woven from knowledge." How does this apply to my problem in understanding John McCain? I think he lacks an inclination to supplement information with knowledge. I’m sure McCain is intelligent enough to know that his role in the Cuban Missile Crisis was not a “test of leadership.” So by trumpeting it, was he being loose with the facts (a common form of dishonesty), or was he confused? I expect Griffin would say his assertion is an example of “information” presented without the supportive context of “knowledge.” I don’t think McCain was trying to "deceive" prospective voters, unless he practices self-deception--after all, who could be deceived by such an obviously senseless comparison. I think that he was simply practicing “words without meaning” because the voters he is trying to reach are those who are most comfortable with this type of argumentation. And here is where my other “insight” steps forward. I can excuse dishonesty as self-deception. I can also let McCain off the hook of being “confused” by applying a remark someone made to me, namely “when it comes right down to it, voters act on emotion.” McCain, uses “information” to serve his maverick impulses. With a conscience untroubled by the disconnect between information and knowledge, and a personality that views leadership as “loyalty,” he taps into an emotion. The emotion is “pride” and “fear”--two sides of the same coin. His message to the voters is, “I personify loyalty, determination, and heroism." But without appropriate context such supporting words as “hero,” “country first,” “testing,” “maverick” become meaningless servants of prideful emotion. And from the “fear” side of the emotion coin McCain adds “socialism,” “terrorism,” “Rev. Wright,” “surrender,” “inexperience.” Like a good speaker, McCain knows his audience. McCain is not deceptive; that is just another word without “meaning.“ And he is not just childishly confused. He simply speaks a different language--the language of emotion. When you compare emotion to nuance, you should recognize the real enemy of our country. In a few days we will find out whether McCainspeak is the dominant American language, or whether we are tired of meaningless verbiage emitted by our Presidents. Some would say I should stop trying to be so kind and just call it as it is. Bush, McCain, Rove, Palin, et. al. are lying s.o.b.’s. Sometimes I feel that way. But I don’t want to risk sinking into cranky cynicism. Let’s just say I have strong nuanced reasons to think McCain is problematic, and the “information” spit out by the McCain machine concerning Obama is meaningless emotion without knowledge, in the Susan Griffin sense. The hopeful sign is that many Republicans are recognizing this. If McCain loses, it will be because of a combination of Obama’s more steady and “hopeful” vision and the recognition by many Republicans (like Colin Powell, Scott McClellan, etc.) that our nation deserves better than nasty, country-dividing leadership that insults our intelligence with senseless rhetoric in these critical times.

Barack Obama's historical significance (even if he loses the election)

In the current Presidential campaign the McCain Republicans have accused Barack Obama of being naive, unpatriotic, confused, and out-of-touch with the crises our nation faces. A reading of his memoir, The Audacity of Hope, should easily dispel such characterizations as unfounded. Here is my "read" on Obama's book. What I see is an African-American journaling about his growing self-awareness and telling the story of his search for his roots. No black person in America can poke around in the records of black and white relations, or reflect on the history of racial discrimination without concluding that something went wrong. I find no judgmentalism in Obama. What I find is an American coming to terms with his color, telling the story of his developing self-awareness, searching for knowledge of his ethnic roots, not unlike the delight of John Kennedy returning to Ireland to see where his ancestors came from, or a friend of mine who returned from Italy exulting in finding some folk who remembered his grandfather, or the comfort the Hutterites enjoy living in thriving isolation in a commune near Cutbank, Montana. Then as the story moves into adulthood and Obama becomes involved in community action and state and national politics, as far as the reader can tell, his "color" fades into a non-issue. Obama is a striking example of something good, though long delayed, happening in America. Our history has been a struggle of trying to eradicate the malignant cancer--slavery--that threatened to bespoil the sincerity of our religious convictions and democratic principles, and put at risk the very life of our republican experiment. Lincoln's stand against the Confederates was based on the principle that if state secessions were allowed to occur with impunity, the future of the Union would be fatally damaged. The Civil War was major surgery on the problem, but the road back to health has been long and uncertain. We know the story of civil war, lynchings, hate crimes, and assassinations of prominent black leaders. But with all the setbacks, in our lifetime we have seen, the Supreme Court rule (post-Dred Scott) for peaceful assimilation of blacks (Brown vs. Board of Education), a Muslim preacher (Malcolm X) begin to reconcile with the Martin Luther King, Jr. non-violent approach, King himself honored for his "dream" of whites and blacks living together, a President from a southern state (Lyndon Johnson) leading the push for the landmark civil rights act. And now, Obama. I do not champion Obama just because he is running for President. I see him as the high point on a learning curve--a lesson America has been studying for two centuries. Take a look at the man. In his "A More Perfect Union" speech he showed blacks how to come to terms with their blackness without harboring unforgiveness toward unChristian whites, and without pandering to those (like Rev. Wright) who are still fighting the white victimizers. Obama is not only significant for the maturity that allows him to move on; he is remarkable for his Christian spirit and his vision of America and what we can make of our promising start 200-some short years ago.