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.