"You can't tell people what they want to hear if you also want to tell the truth"

-Hold Steady, Soft in the Center

James Fallows recently did an excellent piece on President Obama, that explored a lot of the mindset behind much of his decision-making, one of the things that struck me is how miffed people appear to be because he is more reserved.

    It turns out that Obama is sufficiently aware of and sensitive about his Mr. Spock–like image to have called it the “biggest misconception” about him in a year-end interview with Barbara Walters on ABC in December. It was entirely wrong, he said, for the public to think of him as “being detached, or Spock-like, or very analytical. People who know me know that I am a softie. I mean, stuff can choke me up very easily. The challenge for me is that in this job … people want you to be very demonstrative in your emotions. And if you’re not sort of showing it in a very theatrical way, then somehow it doesn’t translate over the screen.”
        Whatever he thinks his real emotional makeup might be, the challenge of “showing it,” and translating it over the screen, affects his ability to lead. As an explainer of ideas through rhetoric, Obama has few recent peers. And at least twice in the past four years, he has changed national opinion, and politically saved himself, through the emotional content of his words and presence. Once was in March 2008, when the media storm about his radical-sounding pastor, Jeremiah “God Damn America!” Wright, threatened to end his candidacy. Then Obama responded with his speech in Philadelphia about the meaning of race in America—which at least for a while, and for at least enough of the electorate to let him survive, made his mixed-race heritage a symbol not of threatening otherness but of the country’s true nature. Then, in January of last year, his party’s historic rout during the midterm elections had made Obama seem as shrunken and defeated a figure as Bill Clinton had seemed after his midterm losses 16 years before. But even his usual opponents hailed Obama’s speech in Tucson after the horrific shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords and others, for its sober but healing emotional power. One conservative blog, Power Line, said it was a “brilliant, spellbinding, and fitting speech”; John Podhoretz, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, wrote in the New York Post that it was “beautiful and moving and powerful.” Politically, this is when Obama seemed to return to life after the midterm disaster.

[Via  The Atlantic, Obama, Explained]

I'm not sure that I entirely buy the idea of Obama as so cold. He has two healthy, loving daughters, and wonderful strong wife, and is the poster-family for the typical American family. No one who is that good with children is a cold person or could be emotionally dead inside. At that point, you'd have marital scandals and rebellious children. Thankfully, this administration has been free of such personal scandals, which is a bit of a relief. It's nice to have a president who is focusing on leading the country in an eloquent and intelligent way, instead of fraught with personal drama.

I also think that this is a catch-22 for the President, similar to the Queen Mother's response to Diana's funeral. Many argued that if she didn't cry, she would be seen as heartless and cold. If she did cry, she would be seen as too weak to be capable of running the country. In the end, her reserved dabbing of tears was seen as the only possible compromise.

But this story from Obama's childhood is very illuminating:

     Over lunch, Barry, who was 9 at the time, sat at the dining table and listened intently but did not speak. When he asked to be excused, Ann directed him to ask the hostess for permission. Permission granted, he got down on the floor and played with Bryant’s son, who was 13 months old. After lunch, the group took a walk, with Barry running ahead. A flock of Indonesian children began lobbing rocks in his direction. They ducked behind a wall and shouted racial epithets. He seemed unfazed, dancing around as though playing dodge ball “with unseen players,” Bryant said. Ann did not react. Assuming she must not have understood the words, Bryant offered to intervene. “No, he’s O.K.,” Ann said. “He’s used to it.”
     “We were floored that she’d bring a half-black child to Indonesia, knowing the disrespect they have for blacks,” Bryant said. At the same time, she admired Ann for teaching her boy to be fearless. A child in Indonesia needed to be raised that way — for self-preservation, Bryant decided. Ann also seemed to be teaching Barry respect. He had all the politeness that Indonesian children displayed toward their parents. He seemed to be learning Indonesian ways.
     “I think this is one reason he’s so halus,” Bryant said of the pres­ident, using the Indonesian adjective that means “polite, refined, or courteous,” referring to qualities some see as distinctively Javanese. “He has the manners of Asians and the ways of Americans — being halus, being patient, calm, a good listener. If you’re not a good listener in Indonesia, you’d better leave.”

 [Via the New York Times, Obama's Young Mother Abroad]

I think it's an important insight of how the qualities generally associated with masculinity (emotionless, strong sturdy oak) are much more constricting than the skills it takes to be a good father and husband, or even the skills that it takes to be a good President. When I envision an ideal President, skills such as intelligence, listening, eloquence and inner strength of character rank higher than those of being buddy-buddy with everyone.

Growing up in a cross-cultural home makes you question if any one system is the correct way of being, especially when it comes to gender roles. Obama's experience in Indonesia undoubtedly shaped his cool, calm and collected personality, but isn't that the sort of person you'd want running the country?