• "Team of rivals." Good lord, has a lamer colloquial novelty than this ever spread like such wildfire? Doris Kearns Goodwin is the nicest talking head you'll never meet, but I have to say I hated this term when her book of the same title came out two years ago. How can you use the word "team" to describe a group of 19th century guys in muttonchops who lived 40 years before the sports took over United States culture and sports analogies took over our rhetoric. All this is is a new term for a very, very, very, very, very conventional idea: Don't surround yourself with mindless sycophants. Well, of course.
• This "no drama Obama" business we keep hearing about. Yet another new-sounding term for a nonsensical idea. The only way I know of ensuring no drama in an organization is to forbid conflict, and the only way to do that is through a dictatorship. Which doesn't exactly lend itself to a "team of rivals," now does it?
I am sure that in the Obama administration, there will be rivals. To the extent there are rivals, the operation won't always behave like a "team." And when that happens, there will be drama.
You know it, girl.
Okay, before I have a meltdown, I’m stepping back and clarifying my understanding of your post here. You’re slamming the “term” Team of Rivals, right? You aren’t seriously slamming the book, are you? Please tell me you aren’t slamming one of THE best books I’ve EVER read about an absolutely genius move by a genius President?
I just had to put out a contract on Crescenzo, PLEASE don’t make me put one out on you too, huh? I’m running out of bloggers here. Sheesh!
I haven’t read the book, Kristen. So I wouldn’t slam it. This is a linguistic post only. But DKG’s title does open my heart to ideas like this, which David Bromwich wrote for today’s Huffington Post:
“Team of Rivals is a pleasant work of popular history, only harmful to the extent that you weave fantasies around it. Anyone who cares about Obama’s fortunes after his first large public mistake (for even to offer Clinton the position was a mistake) should close his copy of Goodwin and open the actual words of Hillary Clinton on Iraq, and the things Barack Obama said about those words.”
The question is: What does Goodwin mean by “rivals,” and how does it apply to what Obama is doing so far?
Since you’re the first person I know who’s actually read “Team,” I’m all friggin ears.
In her book, Kearns explores the fact that after he was elected (incidentally, an event which virtually everyone involved in that election, including Lincoln believed to be highly unlikely) Lincoln invited all his rivals for the nomination to fill roles in his cabinet. These men all of whom underestimated, disdained, and in some cases despised Lincoln, turned out to be a stunningly effective group of politicians. The reason for that was Lincoln – who worked with, and “worked” these men and their strengths and weaknesses, in order to accomplish things that needed to be accomplished for the good of the country he loved.
While I would agree with Bromwich’s statement that no single event in history is exactly like any other event – even with all the difficulties in the current political environment it does not directly compare to the era and the challenges of the Civil War, I do not agree with his contention that Obama is making a mistake in considering the people who were his rivals for roles in his Cabinet.
Its the last part of a sentence I particularly disagree with in Bromwich’s post: “Any president needs around him people of courage, judgment, and competence who share his fundamental views.”
I believe, along with Lincoln and apparently, based on some of his potential cabinet choices, Obama, that it is only when our leaders include people who do NOT share their own fundamental views in their sphere of influence, that they can truly claim to be people who govern with inclusion, open-mindedness and respect for the diverse nature of the people they govern.
Bromwich’s post doesn’t seem to see the possibilities in that approach, so I’m glad that Obama and not he is your new President. I’m particularly thrilled that Obama had the same reaction to Team of Rivals that I did. I seriously annoyed all my friends and family immediately after I finished it, because I wanted EVERYONE to read it immediately. I haven’t been so strongly impacted by a book in a long time.
Sorry for the long rambling post, David. My best recommendation to appreciate the aspects of this debate is to read that book. It truly is a fascinating excellent book!
One last thing, I don’t necessarily think or know if Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman or anyone else being considered for cabinet posts are good ideas. I just like the idea that people who think, feel…are different are BEING seriously considered.
It’s a new approach to politics, which is precisely what Obama promised he’d use if elected. Whaddaya know – a politician who keeps a promise!
Yes, sigh, I suppose we all have to read Team of Rivals now, just be culturally literate. You, at least, give me reason not to dread it as much as I normally would.
(I value your recommendation over Andrea Mitchell’s.)
David – I know the book may sound like a dusty, heavy historical snoozer, but honestly, I couldn’t put it down! I got the book out of the library to read it, but I loved it so much I went out and bought a copy to keep. I don’t do that for every book, especially hardcovers which are pricey.
There are a surprising number of similarities between the current situation and what was happening when Lincoln was elected. I read it well before the current election cycle had even started, and I remember thinking (I swear I’m not making this up): “Damn it! If only we had someone with the intelligence, vision and political savvy to govern like this NOW!!” I can’t tell you how tickled I am that “someone” not only actually came along but managed to get elected!
I’m very, very interested to see if it will be possible for Obama to attempt to emulate Lincoln’s approach, and if it will be as successful in our modern era.
Honestly, if you are interested in politics, politicians and the ways the US government functions, this is truly a fascinating book. It also IS a potential roadmap for trying to create a more inclusive government now, and I hope Barak can make it work.
I like the approach. My only question is this, why is he picking so many Clintonites?
And K, I am going to go read this book…
Uh-oh David! I’m sorry to have to tell you this but you’ve created a monster in me by raising the issue of this book. Now I’m all over the blogs about Obama’s presumed candidates for Cabinet posts and the similarities with Lincoln.
Just read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/hillary-clinton-secretary_n_143735.html
on Huffington Post. And all the wailing and knashing of teeth about Obama considering Hillary as SoS is almost precisely what people said to Lincoln when he started inviting HIS rivals into Cabinet, i.e. “He’ll never be able to control “x” if he gives him that much authority”, “So-and-so is far too powerful in his own right to ever do anything but run his own agenda”, “Why on EARTH would he have anything to do with someone who treated him so disrespectfully during the election?”
It’s actually starting to get kind of surreal. In case you’re planning to read this book –Spoiler– Lincoln DID control “x”, and so-and-so didn’t get to run his own agenda, and Lincoln made the choices he made because not only was he an absolutely BRILLIANT strategist, politician and leader, but he loved his country and had an innate wisdom about what it needed at that moment in time. The men he chose had strenghts and knowledge and capabilities that were suited to fill those needs, and under Lincoln’s deft handling, they did precisely that.
It would be premature and highly presumptuous to compare Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln at this early stage in his administration. However, given the surprisingly respectful and competent manner in which he navigated the vicious national election process, I think that it is a serious underestimation of his intelligence and capabilities to assume he doesn’t know what he is doing in the people he’s considering for Cabinet roles.
It’s petty of me, but I enjoy getting to say “I told you so” and I predict that the people who ultimately join this President’s Cabinet will be led and managed by him in a far more effective and successful way than expected by all these 20/20 hindsight people currently offering their unsolicited opinions.
Well, you won’t say I told you so to me, because my point about a “team of rivals” is that to some extent EVERY decent president has surrounded himself with one. (Lots of people think Johnson had Kennedy killed!)
That Lincoln did it so smartly distinguishes him further.
I know, I know: Read the book. OKAY!