WHY THE TWO OBAMAS?
The conflict of two Purposes establishes the Brand.

Nobel Prize winner and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, echoing the impression of many, sees two Obamas. One who speaks most eloquently about issues and another who settles for policies so weak, they are unlikely to be effective. The premise of the argument is that things would be better if we just had the first Obama to deal with, and that this is possible with a bit of extra audacity.

I often envy card carrying economists for the simplicity of their premises. This is a case in point. Contrary to Paul Krugman, I believe that we just cannot have one Obama. The American system does not allow it; and if the system allowed it, the people would not have enjoyed it.

We elected Obama to play four roles: The Head of the Democratic Party; The occupant of the pulpit of the Oval Office; The Head of the Administration and the Head of Government. It would, therefore, be irrational to expect him to act the same irrespective of the role he performs at any particular moment. The Constitution would not allow it. Furthermore, it would be unrealistic to expect him to be equally good in all roles; nobody is. Even if he were, he would still be dependent on the performance of others. The Government, the Administration, the Party are team sports. This is how our system works.

The premises of economists fix man; place him in a static condition. No matter what happens he will be a producer or consumer of articles, a decision maker. However, in politics, as in drama, man is dynamic, a restless seeker of his purpose. When it comes to the reaction of the people, when watching an unfolding story, such as that of Obama, our attention first focuses on character.

In attempting to understand character, we enjoy focusing first on what he is trying to do. In my opinion Obama `s purpose is clear: to reinstate America as the city on the hill. His personal voyage reveals him as a man pursuing excellence for its own shake. He is fundamentally a sovereign type, as genuine in wanting to set the right standards as John McCain, the warrior par excellence , was in fighting America`s wars.

Paul Krugman, nevertheless, does have a point. The Administration has a secondary purpose: to maintain a sense of community with Congress and beyond. The two purposes are indeed in conflict, but it is this conflict that makes the story interesting and thus sustainable. Obamism, like most brands, is built on the conflict of two purposes. It is this conflict that creates the illusion of the two Obamas.

Only great companies and great leaders eventually settle on a single purpose that becomes their legacy. This does not happen by choice, but in action, in what dramatists call the recognition scene. We are too early into the story to be asking for it.