It's The Complexity, Stupid

For a former op-ed columnist to sit on her pen this year feels downright un-American, so I began drafting a post with this title a few weeks ago. I figured the point would be self-evident after the Palin pick even for those who surfed on without reading past the hyperlink. But I scrapped the text in that draft when events unfolding around the will-we-or-won't-we bailout, and the will-we-or-won't-we debate, made the point even more pungent.

Here we are facing the largest financial crisis since 1929 and when it first hit, one candidate for president wanted to wait until a deal had been struck before even discussing his take on the issues, while his opponent said the crisis made it even more urgent for the two of them to engage on a public stage.

This generated some pundit quips on the topic of multi-tasking. For me, it underlined that only one of these prospective presidents is truly comfortable being scrutinized while events unfold in real time.

But even more significant is what it all suggests about which of the two is best equipped to make discerning decisions in difficult times on complex issues.

Best of Minds in Worst of Times
It's become especially trendy this season to poke fun at those presumed to have a high IQ. This always happens around elections in which the candidates seek to look more populist, but this year it seemed to take on an extra bite, as emphasized by the presence of Palin. Shortly thereafter, things got really nasty on Wall St. and now even some hardened partisans appear to be thinking twice about the GOP ticket.

How can anyone question that we need our best minds in the worst of times?

Put that way, I hope few observers would quibble: we all want our leaders to represent our best. But they  certainly do want to differ about what "best" should mean. Is it a strong IQ, a degree from a challenging school, or is it a particular kind of life experience or a certain kind of character?

I am not an anti-elite when it comes to intellect. I tend to respect Ivy degrees and well-tempered resumes, even as I grant that high IQs are completely capable of stupidity. But for me, it's not only about IQ or which jobs and which schools; it is all of that and then some, including character and temperament as honed by life experience.

 

David Brooks recently expressed his own bottom line on this topic so well, that I'll let him frame it for me:

 

"... It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.."  (David Brooks on "Experience", NYT, Sept. 15. 2008)

This is a masterful summary of a bundle of traits that we used to equate with "intelligence" except that we don't often put it that way because the I-Word is so un-PC these days (watch for a separate upcoming riff from me about that).

 

Brooks called it "prudence" when he penned the passage above. I am fine with that too. I am fine with whatever works to help us all agree that such qualities still matter enormously.

 

Multi-Dimensional Thinking

"Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared," Brooks added later in the same piece. Again I agree.

But to all the above I would add one other thing more explicitly:

The capacity to grasp complex problems from several sides on many levels at once is no longer optional in an American president. The world has simply become too fast-moving, complex and interdependent to settle for anything less.

 

I call it multi-dimensional thinking. But whatever you want to call it, the net effect of this kind of mind in a person of character is one those things you just know when you see it.

 

The clear eyes, strong spine and steady hands that telegraph a masterful mind that feels fully equipped to understand issues, comprehend options and chart a course through the tricky tipping points between conflicting priorities. The serene sort of confidence that comes from a strong sense of self tempered in many real life settings, instead of a more insular point of view. Core beliefs that encourage us to reach above partisan politics and petty agendas, combined with a deep drive to unite whenever possible, instead of divide whenever expedient. The kind of passion that inspires instead of inflame. An unending thirst for learning and a strong pleasure in sharing it in understandable terms. And, last but far from least, the wisdom to speak to our capacity to overcome, instead of stoking the fears that keep us wary, suspicious and separated.

 

Which past presidents come to mind when you think in such terms? Not many, I suspect, since there have been so few in history, and even fewer since World War II.

 

From where I sit, that level of calm far-seeing mastery coupled with an ability to grasp what is happening in several directions at once is coming from only one presidential candidate. It's not even close to a tie if you frame it like this, then ask which one is better equipped.

 

His opponent reminds me, at least on TV, of how a large mammal might feel when caught in the wash of an airplane propeller. And the stakes today are simply too high for us to be led by those who feel flummoxed when faced with fast-moving complexity.