The Most admired people in 2020

 

In two polls reported for the most admired people, Barack Obama and Michelle Obama were the most consistently regarded.

 

To be precise, Barack Obama came first worldwide, and first or second in the US, depending on the poll. In Australia and the UK, he was beaten by David Attenborough.

Michelle Obama was the most admired woman worldwide, and in both US polls. In the UK, Queen Elizabeth II ranked ahead of her; in Australia, both the Queen and Jacinta Ardern ranked ahead. Ardern was top in New Zealand, unsurprisingly, followed by the Queen and Obama.

Donald Trump beat Obama in one of the US polls - but that’s because it was taken at a highly politicised time, and the Democrat vote was split, with Obama coming in second, and Joe Biden third. Trump was supported by 18%, Obama by 15%, Biden by 6% and, interestingly enough Bernie Sanders by 1% (7^th most admired). It’s quite salient to find that Obama outperformed Trump in every country surveyed - except Russia. They have a friend in Trump!

 

In Australia, only two Australians made each list: the prime minister, an athlete, an actor... and a previous prime minister, Julia Gillard.

 

Of the top 20 men globally, 35% (7 men) were leaders/politicians, 20% were athletes, 20% actors, 15% capitalists and 10% spiritual leaders. I might have expected a more eclectic mix, but that gives some idea who people look up to the most: leaders and achievers that are in the public eye. People admire their power, admire them physically, or admire their wealth. There’s a 12.5% exception for their humanism, if you count Bill Gates as half philanthropist.

 

The Australian list was similar, but we admire leaders less (25% instead of 35%) and sports people more (25% instead of 20%) - which suggests we have the same regard for each! David Attenborough was an addition and exception. Is he admired as a scientist or a humanist? Possibly more of the latter.

 

The methodologies for the surveys need to be mentioned. In the US, Gallup surveyed in December, and asked an open-ended question, which meant people could choose personal acquaintances.. For the rest (including the other US survey), 42 countries were included (which included Turkey - so Erdogan got to the global top 20, although two Turkish figures were ahead of him within Turkey, both singers). YouGov did some preliminary polling earlier in the year, then asked the survey questions from a closed list of people.

My List? Off the top of my head, I’d include

 Jacinta Ardern

 Julia Gillard

 Barack Obama

 Bernie Sanders

 David Attenborough

If I wanted to include entertainment, I might include Neil Young (for his enormous. varied musical career and great guitar work), George Clooney (for his humanitarian as well as screen presence) and Patrick Mahomes (US quarterback for the KC Chiefs, for his ability and leadership). If pressed, I might come up with more names from science, literature, music and American Football.

 

And what is admired? The list of qualities seems to differ, depending on whether the involvement is personal, work-related, or those with no direct connection.

The following list appeared in Forbes, which might speak to leadership as much as anything:

 

1. Humility

2. The ability to learn

3. Integrity 

4. Responsibility

5. Resilience

6. Compassion for others

7. Respect for others

8. Big vision

9. Inspiring others

10. Reinvent ourselves

 

What makes Australia different from the US

I saw a number of internet memes around the recent US election.  Most were average, a fair few scatological, and a handful were really funny (viz for example Tony Abbott, and Big Bird).


 Having seen the number of Americans who swore they would move to Australia if Obama won, it was gratifying to see such a succinct response:

Further, a clear and consistent majority of Australians preferred Obama to win - as did most of the rest of the world (bar Pakistan).  Doesn't leave much of an option for those wanting to move.



It's important to have heroes - and vision.  And the world is a slightly better place.

Obama's Noble prize

Congratulations to Barack Obama for his award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Of course, a number of conservatives and Americans are frantically scratching their heads over this award.

(The Sydney Morning Herald's pet conservative, Paul Sheehan, complained: about Obama being nominated before he was two weeks in office; about the number of US Democrats that had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years - Jimmy Carter and Al Gore too; but he mainly complained about the Afghanistan government.)


But world politics is not felt by its subtlety, so some may have missed the work Obama has done to improve the atmosphere of multilateral politics.

It's worth looking at some of the reasons Obama was cited.  The Nobel committee said (with some emphasis added by me) the award was

" for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"

Michelle Obama as wise woman

Michelle Obama caused an uproar when she said she said she was proud of her country for the first time.

The prevailing ethos in America is that you should be proud of your country - it's axiomatic. Anyone who isn't damn proud isn't patriotic.

Of course, I have to give credit that not all Americans feel that way - doubtless if such a comment was made in Australia in the midst of a political maelstrom, it would be followed by a similar spluttering of talkback radio and columnist apoplexy. But in Australia, that would be followed by a decent dose of critical analysis.

According to Wikipedia, she first said, in February 2008: "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." However, she subsequently modified it for political digestibility.

I am sure that, amongst her welter of feelings at the time, she felt proud for several reasons: that Barack was on board for America, that a black man had gotten that far, that black America had someone really substantial to look up to, that somehow an imbalance was being redressed.

Yes, it was about skin colour. But more, it was about an overturning of the dominant paradigm, in favour of - in Australian terminology - a fair go. And it's hard for that to fall into place without a minority figure at the top.


I read an interview with her in a women's magazine - which was more insightful than I expected. Michelle was impressed that Barack Obama had started his career helping deprived communities. And he went to law school intending "to figure out how to use these gifts not to help myself, but to help others".

Her expressed hopes were simple: universal access to full education (university and beyond), universal healthcare, and an improved America in the world. Yet she still appreciated that these are big agendas, that will take years of work from everyone, not just the [next] president.

As I've mentioned before, on a personal level, she said "we are always measuring our progress by how our kids are doing... not unlike most parents. We're as good as our kids are. If they're happy and whole, they're feeling confident and loved, and they're doing well in school and have friends... then I feel like whatever else is happening, it doesn't really matter."

Okay, that might sound a bit like a truism. But the sum of her thoughts suggests that Barack Obama has partnered with someone who is equally intelligent, thoughtful and ethical. The full article is available here, and is worth a read.

An Obama anecdote from 20 years ago

An interesting illustration of Obama's character dates from 20 years ago, when he was a not-very-well-off law student. I don't think his generosity was in anticipation of a vote in a presidential election...

Iran's election result was doctored

Were the declared results of the Iranian election accurate? Did hardliner Ahmadinejad win resoundingly?

Western governments reacted quite cautiously to the announced results - primarily because they had no information (such as pre-election polls or exit polls) to gauge the fairness. Obama was excoriated by the American right for not speaking out, but as he said, he didn't want America to become the issue, and to have external and internal groupings close ranks simply because of an American pronouncement.

But as heard on BBC World Service radio, an analysis from the UK's Chatham House and St Andrews University has now cast serious doubts on the validity of the declaration. The research was conducted on declared results specifically on a province-by-province basis. Results indicate, inter alia, that:
- in two conservative provinces, a greater than 100% turnout was recorded.
- did an increase in voter turnout swing it? No, because the greatest swing to Ahmadinejad didn't occur in the provinces with greatest increases in turnout.
- For the official results to be true, in a third of the provinces Ahmadinejad would have had to take all previous conservative and centrist votes, all new votes, and 44% of previous reformist votes, which belies continued tensions between reformists and conservatives.
- Ahmadinejad was "markedly unpopular in rural areas", which belies the claim that he triumphed in the more rural provinces.


The BBC's report comprised an interview with one of the researchers, who added several years of recent anecdotal personal experience in Iran, which fleshed out and backed up the analysis of figures.

Further comment was offered that there was an equivalent divide behind the scenes. One aspect of this was that former president Rafsanjani, a reformist, is currently chair of the influential Assembly of Experts.

The Iranian ruling Guardian Council had been assessing some of the results, but this evaluation was of a relatively small number of votes, and didn't look at wider provincial results. They thus reported no major irregularities.

The BBC report also indicated that new (internet-based) media was playing a significant part in information dissemination, so press restrictions are, to some extent at least, not as effective as those in power would like.

The world is watching, yes. But at this point it's hard to see the status quo being overturned: current unrest in Iran is not - yet - at revolutionary pitch. When - if - it all settles, the only lasting effect may be a taint on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad, and Iran's voice in the world.

Sadly, I can never find web references to the full BBC radio reports, but I found one BBC report on that analysis here; the Christian Science Monitor also has a summary here. Chatham House's full report is here.

Mission Obama: Middle East

Before Obama's middle east speech, I heard a senior BBC news editor interview him. His responses were very thoughtful and candid - albeit to the more diplomatic end of the scale when asked if Mubarek was a dictator. Afterwards, the editor commented that he saw Netanyahu after his talk with Obama - the discussion which ran twice the scheduled 60 minutes worth - and that Netanyahu looked particularly grim-faced - as if he'd been given a good talking-to.

Obama can achieve without taking action. His middle east speech was masterful in what it says to both sides: two states, settlements out, but the alliance with Israel is powerful. When the BBC canvassed comments on it afterwards from a range of people, it was notably only the Israeli and Palestinian extremists that had anything negative to say about it - all else was praise. A good illustration that Obama was on the right track.

He has already succeeded in wringing concessions out of Netanyahu: not yet on the settlements, but at least on the two states.

And his speech was exquisitely timed - probably intentionally - to have some effect on the Iranian election. In the leadup to that election, there was a degree of political activism in Iran that many commented they hadn't seen since the 1979 revolution.

The outcome - to date - of that election seems to have run counter to everyone's expectations, given the mood on the ground beforehand. Which is probably why many are calling fraud - a vote of over 60% for Ahmadinejad is tantamount to absurd. Situation still unfolding.

Of polls, presidents, and kangaroos

An informal readers poll in the Sydney Morning Herald gave some interesting results for kangaroos and presidents.


The sample size given was 1256. Of those, just over three quarters felt that kangaroos "should be killed to provide meat for human consumption".

Of the quarter that didn't agree, doubtless some of them thought kangaroos were just too cute and furry. But the environmental debate is all but won by the carnivores.

Assuming there is a certain amount of inevitability about meat consumption, it would make more sense to harvest kangaroo than cow. They're lean, and built for the Australian environment - and so have far less effect on the Australian environment - and the global one, for that matter. Most overseas-originating arguments against it seem somewhat specious*.


And how do you think President Obama's going? About one in seven thought he was brilliant - somewhat less than I might have expected. Most just thing he's good. Some don't know, some go for the average... but less than two percent think he's performing poorly. That's surprisingly low, especially as one could expect there to be a reasonable number of partisans from the right in that sampling. And Obama has already been faced with a high number of no-win situations in a short amount of time.

I still contend that he imparts wisdom more consistently than any other players around him, but I would think that the mass judgment counts wins more than anything else. And it's hard to say that what clear wins he has had.

With any luck, the general public is collectively trying to use a bit of wisdom. Now that would be about as much of an ask as calling for a wise leader...


*Update 29-May-09: There have been some instances of bad industrial ethics/practices in the kangaroo industry (including brutality and lack of hygiene), but these are certainly not intrinsic to the issue of kangaroos vs cows.

Climate Change Australia: bad policy goes worse

Having Kevin Rudd as a Prime Minister has meant an era of management rather than leadership. Evidence is the revised but still tragic climate change policy: the Emission Trading Scheme is being delayed past the next election, emission prices are to be set at a low $10 per tonne, and industrial polluters are compensated even more.

Activist organisation GetUp! has the facts of the new policy. The Sydney Morning Herald gave an environment perspective and a political perspective on this change, which has been variously characterised as a backflip or a watering down of action over climate change.

The original plans were fundamentally flawed from an environmental perspective, such that Ross Garnaut, author of the government-commissioned report on the subject, said it might be better to hold off on implementation - in the hope that public pressure will yield better policy. Be careful what you wish for, Ross. Public opinion has had a long tradition of clamouring for contradictory outcomes, effectively leaving key issues up to those they vote for.

Rudd was juggling a number of balls over the issue: industry concerns (peak bodies had been holding the previous labour government to ransom on this specific issue, even before Kyoto), economic crisis, and pressure from environmental voices. That last was the weakest pressure, because traditionally the ALP has the environment vote in the bag (would you rather vote for something even more conservative, hey?). They also figured that the buildup of pressure on climate change remained weak despite the mammoth publicity over the last three years. Some justification for this view exists in the voting record at the last election, where green votes did not surge to reflect the apparent level of interest. Again, the public agrees there is a problem, but want "someone else" to do "something". How to break this toxic nexus? Same as ever, I guess: hope for good leadership, participate in public pressure (via GetUp!'s campaign, for example), and vote right. Political vision entails hard choices for the right reasons, and persuading the electorate to follow. Rudd was elected for a raft of reasons other than that, unfortunately. I have little confidence in anyone on Australia's political horizon (whilst holding judgment on Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett, who may well be hamstrung); fortunately, there remains hope in Obama.


06-Sep-09 Update:  Two important points I mention in a later post:
1) There is a truly evil effect of the government's plan: any attempts by individuals to reduce their carbon emissions is used to offset the burden of the large corporate polluters, thus rendering individual action worse than useless.
2) The original bill for the Emission Trading Scheme was knocked  back by the Senate; to date the government intends re-introducing it with little substantive change.

Michelle Obama on the parent's challenge

I came across an interview with Michelle Obama, dating from the election campaign. Inter alia, she says (with the emphasis added by me):

"[amidst the maelstrom of the campaign] we're always measuring our progress by how our kids are doing. And I think, in that way, we're probably not unlike most parents. We're as good as our kids are. If they're happy and whole, they're feeling confident and loved, and they're doing well in school and they have friends, and, you know, they have a sense of centredness about themselves, then I feel like whatever else is happening, it doesn't really matter."

I have to admit that until I became a parent, words such as that were just truisms. I think they would remain so for most people until they are cemented by personal experience.

The emphasised words could be construed two ways. On one reading, the parent is feeling good if the children are feeling good. Another interpretation, my preferred, is that the outcomes for the children reflect how successful the parents are at parenting.

Of course, it's not as simple as that. Children are not interchangeable, malleable material. They all come with their own challenges, and some are clearly far more challenging than others.

Still, it's immensely rewarding to witness positive outcomes that you can, at least in part, take some credit for. Or that, in your absence, outcomes could have been notably worse.

Parenting calls for a great amount of time, effort and personal engagement. But the returns - affirmations of one's efforts - can be commensurately great.


8-May-09 Afterthought: I am also reminded of the Roberto Benigni film Life Is Beautiful where, during the second world war, a father manages to shield his son from the external ravages for as long as possible, by making it seem like a game. That shelter is very meaningful to younger children, and while children need to be brought gently into the world, childhood is best when it's a happy, secure treasure.

Stern, Obama, Wong on climate change

Overnight on BBC radio, I heard an interview with Nicholas Stern, author of the landmark report on the economic ramifications on climate change (the programme, One Planet, can be listened to here).

Stern was discussing in a less formal sense the outlook for climate change. What he had to say was little different to the thoughts expressed here. The situation is urgent but the outlook somewhat pessimistic; and it's in the hands of people to take action and world leaders to show leadership. The interviewer then asked opinions of his son (about 10 years old, from memory) and from a taxi driver. The responses were not entirely surprising. The boy was aware that everyone wasn't looking to the long term, and that people may care about their own kids, but don't see much beyond that. The taxi driver professed to be a global warming skeptic, but said he put energy efficient lights in the house (why? to do his part). On the one hand the problem was in his mind enough to do something simple, but on the other hand, it was too big for him to feel empowered to do more than that.

The answer is to vote, and to vote for someone sufficiently visionary.

In the same broadcast, I heard President Obama had announced plans to develop 100 very fast train links in the US. I didn't appreciate the import until I heard him speak, holding up European examples such as a train link between Madrid and Seville that was so good that more people travelled between those cities by train than by car and plane combined.

That is what I mean by visionary. Obama has the will and capacity to reshape the global political landscape.

Meanwhile in Australia, the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is forced to defend the planned emission trading system from attacks from all quarters, right left and centre. The Senate inquiry also drew comment from Ross Garnault, who had been commissioned by the government to report on the issue and options for action. Even he said it was touch and go whether it was worth entirely scrapping the current plan - and incurring the consequent period of inaction while a new proposal was formulated. The present scheme is so hopelessly flawed that none of the non-government senators will support it - so it is doomed in its current incarnation. In any case, it sounds like government backbenchers are pressing for change, such that the efforts of individuals aren't co-opted by corresponding rewards to large industry. That is the least that could be changed. But it is unlikely to be enough to save it, and something better is needed.

There is no recession in Australia

Economics is a funny ol business. It's all about confidence, which is what the G20 group of world leaders has been trying to do in London. That is, instill confidence in the rest of the world to spend, spend, spend. Consumers: buy stuff. Capital owners: invest. Reporter: "what would it take for this conference to be a success". World Leader: "for you to report it as a success".

For some reason, France and Germany have a different agenda. They want to develop a new economic order. Which is laudable, but the world is currently in panic mode, and first things need to come first. Meanwhile, America and China are working on that new order anyway at the highest level (at the London talks, Obama and Hu Jintao got together, releasing a joint communique twice the length of that of the US and Russia). Which is about what you'd expect, given the changing nature of global economics over the past 15 years.

Confidence took a tumble courtesy of the unstable nature of capitalism. That and a frenzy of unviable home lending in the US (subprime) which was subsequently wrapped into little-understood securities to spread poison thorought the world's financial institutions, which subsequently took a tumble, refused to trust one another, refused to lend to businesses, which business subsequently started laying off staff, which meant those that went stopped spending and those that stayed were too scared of layoffs to spend. Enough of them anyway.

Australia's a bit different: if you can't make the mortgage repayments, you still owe: you can't leave an empty house as complete settlement of debt. Further, the banks have greater asset-backing requirements, so are in good shape. Still, the global market downturn has greatly affected Australia's resource exports, and subsidiaries of foreign companies - such as GM-Holden - are not immune.

Confidence. Australia is not officially in recession yet. The government and other authorities have been at pains to point that out, trying to prop up confidence. But it has been as good as admitted that when the next quarterly figures are released, Australia will officially be in recession.

The government's financial stimulation packages (effectively giving away money) have had some effect. Consumer spending over the past quarter hasn't really sunk - as it has in other countries. But people have to a fair extent been squirrelling away the bounty. All it has really shown is that it can have an effect, but to have the desired affect needs a substantially greater sum than has been spent so far. So even if the World Bank and OECD can laud Australia's initiatives and give a tick to the (relative!) robustness of the economy, there is a lot further to sink before enough confidence returns.


* A note related to the title: OECD data confirms New Zealand has been experiencing negative GDP growth since the beginning of last year (and thus almost a year into recession). Quite a surprise to hear that on the radio yesterday. Australia, by comparison, has yet to hit the second quarter of contraction which officially defines recession.

Carter on the Middle East

Heard some comments from Jimmy Carter on the radio overnight - probably a BBC interview. He seemed to be very aware of the issues and points of contention in the middle east. Some of what emerged from that interview follows.

He mentioned that Obama consulted him on the middle east, and indicated it was one of his big priorities. Carter expressed strong optimism for the new administration's capacities to reduce tensions (his words on Obama in the past included: "honesty, intelligence, and politically adept"). He was especially praiseful for Obama's middle east envoy, George Marshall, who had a significant part in easing tensions in Ireland. Carter stressed Marshall's neutrality to the situation, with words that suggested a) previous envoys had been too pro-Israel to achieve solutions; and b) Israel probably wouldn't like him. Carter also noted that Israel seemed headed to a one-state solution, which was patently unviable, not the least because the arab population (Israeli? or Israeli+Palestinian?) was set to outnumber the Jewish.

Carter did not mention Hillary Clinton at all, which suggests that either Obama has no intention for her to play a significant part (wise), or that Carter had little confidence in her capacity to bring about peace. Certainly, Hillary's words prior to inaugeration sounded like a death-knell to peace, substantially the same attitude as past US administrations had had. I think it's possible for her to be a successful Secretary of State, but clearly not in this area.


The interviewer also made mention of Carter's upcoming book We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work. A promising title, and now, hopefully, a government with the capacity to achieve it.

Obama on foreign policy

Obama's book (Audacity of Hope) give a very helpful understanding of his goals for the US into the future - but as well as the good, it also flags some areas to watch out for, and some areas where his capacity to achieve an ideal will be sorely tested.


His words place his ideological foundation squarely in the western liberal tradition. Yes, he is a "liberal" in the American understanding of the word - that is, about as near as they can get to left-wing - but I'm using the term in the philosophical sense. This means he is explicitly pro-capitalism: he says as much. In that context, his words paint a picture of government as being the mediator and director of capitalist forces for the benefit of the people. It has to be said, however, that Obama's expression of his ideals - and he does have a nobleness of spirit - at times verges on motherhood sentiment. With a politician's eye on appreciating the dichotomous perspectives of the everyman, it's easy to suspect his capacity to exercise a hard edge that is sometimes needed to force a lurch of society in the right direction. Still, in terms of both ethics and position on the left-right spectrum, he is the most promising president in a very long time, and it's hard to see America producing the likes of him very often at all.

His chapter on the American constitution gives a good insight into the basis for the general American vision; he looks to the constitution and founders as a kind of bible for the values of their political and social system - yet ultimately he recognises that the original model for government is not a perfect bedrock: more, a basis for an ongoing political discussion.

(His assessment might be reasonably accurate - unsurprisingly, he has taught constitutional law. However, it also reveals a flaw inherent in their model - that there is too little to stop the political discourse being hijacked by a sufficiently strong ideologue or power nexus, particularly in the face of plummeting public engagement in any political processes. ...to Obama's personal credit, he has probably raised the political engagement of the general public to levels not seen in a few generations.)


And there are clear problems with Obama's exposition on America's relationship with the world. Yes, he has a solid understanding of the nature of American foreign policy, and its all-too-often deleterious consequences. He knows very well how America has time and again fuelled the fires of emnity around the world - hardly more so than in the very recent past. He understands

But two broad principles emerge from his discussion that mitigate against soundness in peace and international co-operation. The first is the age-old issue of ceding sovereignty to external organisations. A nation does this rarely, but with the notion that the real and upfront concessions are repaid by the more real and longer-term benefits. (The gradually evolving European Union is a good example of this: a very slow process in which an amount of sovereignty is yielded every once in a while, as pluses slowly emerge.)

The other notion that emerges is one that America's fundamental values are simply right or, at least, better than anyone else's, and that foreign policy just needs some - sometimes major - adjustment. First, as my wife is fond of telling me, knowing I am right - or my values are right - does not make it so. Second, that is not the way to foster international rapprochement.

Having said all this, I still think American could not have produced a more promising president.

rebirth of rationality in America

"Science, science, science" - summary from Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, when asked about priorities in a plan for reviving the US economy (quoted in New Scientist, 24 Jan 2009).

"I believe in evolution, scientific enquiry, and global warming" - Barack Obama, The Audacity Of Hope (p17).

"I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarky" - Joe Biden, now Vice President, when asked about intelligent design in 2006.

Obama on politics

Barack Obama's book The Audacity Of Hope is a very pleasant read. It's easy, lively and thoughtful, and gives an impression of grace.

The chapter on politics gives a few interesting insights into his experiences. He discusses the danger of "transformation into the stock politician of bad tv movies", and every politician's fear of losing an election - more, a fear therein of "total, complete humiliation". Winner takes all. He compares this to the business executive who can prosper by coming second, year after year.

He also discusses the burgeoning need for money to fund campaigns. He is aware of the process of increasingly spending one's time in the company not of ordinary people, but those who are well off enough to donate thousands to one's next campaign. Despite efforts to maintain one's stands on particular issues, the voices one hears become increasingly slanted to those people and their interests: "the problems of ordinary people... become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought". On the other hand, Obama says: "One of my favourite tasks of being a senator is hosting town meetings... my time with them is like a dip in a cool stream."

He recognises the tangible difference in motivation between lobbyists who represent profit-making interest and those that represent public issues. Yet he mentions filling in 50 questionnaires from interest groups in his senate primary campaign, and the difficulty in ticking all of any one set of boxes. For example: "I might agree with a union on the need to enforce labor and environmental standards in our trade laws, but did I believe that NAFTA should be repealed". He says he lost some endorsements on his answers, although on occasion he was surprised in getting an endorsement despite a "wrong answer".

And he goes into some detail on the convoluted practices of the Senate and the House of Representives, which of themselves are a demoralising indictment on the subversion of political processes.

The chapter exhudes integrity - but of course, words written by a politician about politics can very easily be seen as self-serving, whether they are or not. He rounds off the discussion about the demerits of the system with a set of ideas for campaign reform. They include: "nonpartisan districting, same-day registration and weekend elections" to increase participation (and thus scrutiny) levels. "Public financing of campaigns or free television and radio time could drastically reduce the constant scrounging for money and the influence of special interests. Changes in the rules in the House and the Senate might empower legislators in the minority, increase transparency in the process, and encourage more probing reporting".

He frames this challenge in terms of the willingness of those in office to yield some of their power base: a change in attitude, an amount of courage, and - implicity - a generosity, a harkening back to the reasons for public service.

He now has his best opportunity to influence some of these adverse political practices. He has already made a start, in mandating a greater distance between serving in his administration and joining the lobbyists on the other side of the fence. Let's see how far he can get.

Obama is sometimes black

In reading the headlines in Australian newspapers, it's easy to get the impression that the only notable feature of Barack Obama as president is that he is black. Never mind his ethics, intelligence, insight, vision, coherency - and praxis. As a letter-writer took glee in pointing out in two Australian papers, Martin Luthor King said "[I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where] they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." That writer didn't notice anything particular about Obama; he had already missed the boat.

But Obama is sometimes black. Meaning, there is sometimes some particular significance [beyond what his experiences have fed into his character]. This even apart from those around the world who are now infusing his ethics and asking themselves in a given situation "what would Obama do?"

BBC World Service radio recorded and reported some personal experiences from some people who had made the trek to Washington to experience the inaugeration in person. One African American woman expressed how he was a personal inspiration to her, his example encouraging her to a greater level of personal responsibility in her life. (Not that she, from her discourse, seemed to lack any particular sense of responsibility. It seemed, more, that she felt that connection, and felt duty-bound to take her sense of responsibility to a higher level.)

It is not my intention to purvey any sort of condescension here, but rather to convey a sense of the inspiration he has provided to so many people that would not have otherwise been engaged were he not African American.

Obama is black when it has particular significance. But for the most part, he is more than that.

Obama before inaugeration

Obama's "last interview before inaugeration" was another good insight into the man who, having already cemented his pivotal status in this epoch must also be, in some part of his mind, aware that eight years is a drastically short time to put in place sound building blocks for the world's future.

Despite the questions being inevitably located within the same melange of pressing issues of the era, and despite his charactistically easy loquatiousness echoing themes largely previsited, there remained room - as always - to gain further understanding of his capacity to chart the maelstroms.

He mentioned discussing with his daughters Lincoln's inaugeration addresses and their personal expectations of him to achieve so much, in a human sphere. He has consistently been able to weave any and all of the varying strands of ideas to a broader, nobler narrative. The clarity and strong coherency of his vision, humanity and intelligence is always stunning. Although that is all too often proven inadequate unto itself, he also clearly articulates action that is already underway as concrete reality. It's fortunate that the opportunity is here: There are truly few who could face these times like Obama.

Environmental crisis (#3 of 2008)

The eye was off the ball this year, distracted by the global financial crisis.

In the last two decades, habitat destruction has been recognised as the biggest threat to biodiversity - but recognition has not sufficiently translated into action. That very narrative was compounded and magnified by the complete wrenching of the global ecosystem, simply because we vote for leaders who are too lacking vision to grapple with the large-scale industrial revolution needed to counter global warming.

The European Union has been - by and large - a bastion of sensible policy. However, their approach remains far too evolutionary and not revolutionary enough. China and India are slow to respond, but are not helped by lack of leadership from the industrialised nations. In America, we have to wait for George W Bush's pathetic body to be shovelled bit by bit out of the Whitehouse - and then have to wait for Obama's plan to translate vision into action.


Which, as it happens, is where Australia has tripped up in a big way. While espousing mantras on the absolute imperative of combatting global warming, Kevin Rudd's leadership has been characterised by lengthy inaction and delaying investigation - trumped by the release of a policy raft that demeans all Australians in the smallness of its vision - so much so that it has been said to actively encourage dirty carbon emitters to ramp up their destructive practices for some time to come - whereupon they will be handsomely rewarded with government handouts, and have plenty of room to make token improvements.

Kevin Rudd was characterised by a Canberra insider as being especially indecisive. His deputy - and frequent acting Prime Minister - Julia Gillard was in turn described as being particularly intelligent and action-focused. I have heard her performance in parliament several times, and her ability is clear and strong. Waiting for the great leap forwards.

Some thoughts on Obama (#1 of 2008)

Two events of 2008 far outweigh in significance all others. I see Obama's election as having a greater long-term effect, particularly as he presents such a stark contrast against Bush's tenure in every possible way.


Obama's victory brings a lot of promises, and no guarantees. Even so, nothing short of revolution could change the landscape of American politics the way Obama has. This makes him the next best.

"I think... our values and and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP".

Simply in the manner of political discourse, he has made American politics a less venal, more noble arena. Although this is more a change in spirit than substance (it brings about no structural change), his influence will clearly be felt over the next few election cycles. But more, his presence has encouraged people to be more active in political processes, whether as a volunteer or voter. Disenchantment with "politics" only serves vested minority interests; greater popular engagement means, at the very least, those in power are obliged to a greater accountability to the public. (All this is true regardless of political hue or political system.)

I have found it hard to fault the consistency of Obama's character and vision, as he espouses in The Audacity Of Hope. (The most I can find so far is minor quibbles with use of language*, but there is context to this.) One could say that his efforts to unify views of polar opposition are doomed, but on the other hand he hangs his hat on the 'liberal' end of American politics.

"I am angry about policies that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over average Americans, and insist that government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all. I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming..."

I'm not overwhelmed by the stars. I think, for instance, that some of his appointments to date are going to prove fraught. Hilary Clinton is not the most diplomatic person one could appoint to the top diplomat position. And she will certainly not ease middle east tensions (nothing short of freedom for the occupied territories and removal of all Israeli settlements would achieve this - and that will not happen under her watch). Obama's appointments for science and for climate change are brave, but they are knowledgeable as scientists, not for their ability to navigate the treacherous political waters. The positions need a reasonable amount of scientific understanding, but a particularly strong political nous - not the other way around.


Still, I'm getting some very good signals from Audacity of Hope. It shows great clarity of vision, and it is one of the most pleasant reads I've had in a long time.


* For example: "...and then, with the walls of the status quo breached, every form of 'outsider' came streaming through the gates: feminists, Latinos, hippies, Panthers, welfare moms, gays, all asserting their rights, all insisting on recognition, all demanding a seat at the table and a piece of the pie." Some very legitimate claims are lumped in with some relatively spurious ones; on the other hand, he could be said to be making a characterisation of perception.