It is good to remember this when we consider the Machiavellian machinations of political procedure so characteristic of our democracy. Of course, ours is a new age in many ways - of political trust, participatory empowerment. With a new generation of politicians and participants, it would be easy to err on the side of embrace and leave the paranoia to newly marginalized Republicans. But the responsible practice of power also involves the scrupulous exercise of self-scrutiny. Paranoia has its place.

Perhaps paranoia is in some ways its own disinfectant. The more it is exercised the less it grows. It keeps the politicians clean so that paranoia itself won’t grow like some mold in the cultural milieu. It is all a question of balance. Without a little public distrust we might all be paranoid; for unscrupulous tend to grow where scrutiny is missing.

The notion that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 is a leftist lunacy; but, minus the paranoid progressives, it might have been possible. Actual conspiracy has been the norm of history, after all. Plenty of monarchs have been readily willing to sacrifice large numbers of the people they represent in order to better meet their own needs. The less their reasons for action were scrutinized, the more likely they must have been to act unscrupulously.

So perhaps conspiracy theories are a democratic bad cop. Sometimes it takes a threat of unreasonable action to bring people to reason. This was Nixon’s mad bomber theory. This is my theory of why the lunatic left and the rabid right might actually have a part to play in our nation’s great debates. The bad cop of paranoia supports the good cop of reasoned debate.

The problem with all of this is that if we don’t trust our representatives enough, like all employees, they will become untrustworthy. Grasping this paradox may be key to our survival as a democracy. A lack of trust for all politicians makes us more willing to accept corruption; less willing to participate politically; less willing to take political debate seriously; and more willing to let our attention be diverted from the real issues by scandals. It diminishes the pool of potential representatives by sullying the job and sends a signal to the just that they are not welcome in politics, while simultaneously signaling the corrupt that this is where they belong. Finally, a lack of trust for our representatives makes us less willing to exalt the truly great leaders of our day.

But trusting politicians is as dangerous as mistrusting them. The problem is that if we trust our representatives too much, they may begin to feel comfortable letting the end justify the means. After all, it is difficult to get things done in our system of checks and balances, and there is much need for compromise and trade offs. It is difficult to tell where this slippery slope ends. If the end begins to justify the means, we must ask ourselves how far we will go. For the means may soon become its own justification. From common cause to political calculus, from collegial compromise to corruption; the sliding scale of harmony and discord can obscure the slope through which principles slip.

And this is where the paranoid steps in. They will be watching and waiting: to tell our representatives when they have stepped over the line; to brand them in their chosen colors when it looks like they might overstep. To a politician, a good reputation is everything. It gets you elected. It allows you to build coalitions to accomplish your goals. And it is an enjoyable end in and of itself.

Paranoids are needed: for the threat they pose, for the untruths they expose. The question is one of optimization. How much to question and how much consent?

One of the best ways to build a movement is to make people feel like they matter. And the movement to elect Obama clearly succeeded in this, empowering a whole new generation of citizens. The problem is that movement participants don’t only expect to achieve the goals of the movement. A sizeable portion of these participants will also expect to achieve something for themselves in return for their contribution - a sense of self-importance, a chance at leadership, an opportunity to exercise their dormant abilities. Seldom is this expectation stated. Perhaps the need is not even felt until the movement is well on its way to achieving its stated goals.

The problem is that individuals don’t tend matter much in a social movement. Numbers often count much more, whether it is the number of votes, dollars, or demonstrators. In movements which require some degree of message discipline, such as a campaign, individual expression can even do significant harm to the movement. Often times the greatest contributors to a movement will eventually be atacked from within it. The French and Russian revolutions are archetypal examples of revolutions “eating their young” in this sense, but the phenomenon plays itself out in settings all too mundane for mention.

This inherent contradiction, so foundational to almost every social movement, accounts for much of the implosive nature of them. Such movements can be like stock market bubbles. We invest in them because the payoffs appear so great. And as we all invest, the payoff appears even greater for both the movement and ourselves. The movement makes great strides toward what were once thought to be unattainable goals. But because there are so many of us investing, an increasingly smaller percentage of us becomes eligible to profit from the boom. The rest of us become merely numbers, a reserve army perhaps, but silent supporters in essence. Thus, what began as a vast expansion of the human spirit, becomes stultifying in its stupefaction.

For their voices to be heard above the din of jubilation, individuals would have to organize themselves from within the movement. And in fact this has already happened, earlier in the summer, as a small faction of Obama supporters questioned his move to the center in support of the telecommunications legislation. But rarely are such initiatives well mannered and friendly to those they seek to influence. Rather they tend to be  organized by the most assertive, led by the most passionate, and develop hierarchies and social norms all their own - norms which often run contrary to the movements out of which they emerged.

The disillusionment these people might experience would not lie so much in being let down by a leader incapable of living up to their great expectations, as so many pundits have suggested. After all, the movement that elected Obama was fairly pragmatic. Rather the disillusionment might play itself out in the failure of efforts to achieve access to the administration. This is could be far more damaging.

Now it is rare for Americans to elect a President through such a movement. Part of the reason for this lies in the fact that ours is a two party system, which calls for political parties to compromise in their efforts to build a winning coalition. Such compromise rarely promises social transformation. But the social transformation alluded to by Obama was in many ways a promise of process - the aspiration to coordinate a chorus of voices, a consensus of contrasts, suppressed by an era of arrogance, and prepared for the responsible exercise of power.

The challenges faced by Obama are great and regularly commented upon - saving the economy, wrapping up two wars, purchasing a puppy, etc. More importantly, the administration is challenged to forge a winning and constant left of center coalition. But perhaps the greatest and least discussed factor in the administration’s success will be its ability to preserve and empower the movement that Obama began when he chose to apire to audacity.

Knowledge workers are now the ascendant class in the internet age and their skills are  vital for the flourishing of most political endeavors. We can expect their interests to be disproportionately respresented in our political system just as those of industrialists once were in the heyday of industrial capitalism.

But the internet is protean, rapidly bringing forth one innovation after another. Activist spam may soon cease to work as a means of organizing great movements due to the simple innovation of spam filters. The golden age of blogging may already be passing as blogs become alternative news sources whose raw edge is toned down and polished for success. Web 2.0 may fail for lack of sufficient revenue. And who knows how twitter may come to be used in third world protest movements.

Because the internet is an easy medium through which to innovate, we can expect an ever expanding proliferation of social fori through which to connect with one another on it. This will change the nature of citizen movements: how they are organized and what defines them. This makes predicting the nature of those communities particularly challenging. And it could make the political sphere unusually volatile for some time to come.

For a whole new generation, the internet has become perhaps the primary medium through which the duties of citizenship are exercised. Will this citizenship be organized from the top down, through charismatic leaders and mega-lists of supporters? The Obama camapign may have been inspiring, but it didn’t require much thinking to get involved in it. Nor has moveon.org inspired an age of enlightenment amongst progressives. Will blogging move us into the millenium of participatory democracy or lead to the development of intelligent mobs? Will access to the internet itself bring about a great digital divide every bit (no pun intented) as horrible as the wealth divides of industrial times? Or will it bring ever more citizens of the world into the political process?

Perhaps the most interesting thing about twenty-first century citizenship is that these questions depend not only upon our ability to make use of the innovations at hand but of our ability to bring forth new innovations and modes of organization amongst ourselves.

Of course, life on earth is secure for nothing and no one. All things must sooner or later come to an end. And yet, it is the human tendency to seek security, a security which can ironically come at great risk. We seek security in nations only to become targeted for our nationality. We build bigger bombs only to be outdone by our neighbors, conquer nature only to deplete and pollute our resources. If we truly want security, it is imperative that we explore the fallout - to take a term from the cold war lexicon of fear - of our efforts to secure ourselves. Or to use another military metaphor, we should ask ourselves what will give us the biggest bang for the buck? It is not clear the answer lies in bigger bombs.

In a world of terrorism, global warming, overpopulation, genetically mutating viruses, and unchecked technological development, national security risks are emerging in ever widening spheres. There are simply more things at risk in our lives and more venues through which to threaten our well being. There is an opportunity in these dangers. Just as the cold war challenged the United States to win a global moral war against an empire of purportedly evil communists, the current world order challenges us to demonstrate why we deserve to lead. Terrorists have presented Americans with an opportunity to rise to greatness. To fail in this regard could do more to harm American power than any military threat imaginable.

And still, given the multitude not only of threats to our being but of venues for self-expression, one wonders how we have become so obsessed with national security to the exclusion of so many other groups with which to identify: family, community, religious, and even humanity itself. Why spend so much effort protecting Americans, when there are arguably far greater threats to the human race? And yet, we should be wary of becoming like the person who having learned of a number of sightings of unidentified flying objects, assumes they are from outer space, that they contains “grays,” and that the “grays” have been conducting experiments on humans through traumatizing alien anal probes. To recognize that military threats have been distorted and exaggerated is neither necessarily an argument for non-violence nor for global unity. For the time being, we must grapple with the arbitrary nature of the nation states with which we at least partially identify and look to for security.

So, what does constitute a “balanced” relationship to national defense? How important is it to protect the nation? How can we best do this? And how should we prioritize such a commitment in relation to other security concerns?

Sometimes we need a little space in our politics. Sharply defined parties lack members. Sharply defined agendas lack support. For when we draw our boundaries too tight, we invite others to do the same. Then politics becomes a fight. And when there are several parties to a fight, rarely does anybody come out winning. Such is the way of partisan politics.

So, when I hear people speak of the emptiness of Obama, I tend to think they’re missing far more than he is. It would be a grave error to contend that Obama moves people merely because of his poetic prose. After all, every serious presidential candidate has access to some of the best speech writers in the world. But few give great speeches.

To stick with the eastern theme, Confucius noted the problem is with the face. We sense the discord between words and deeds. We see it in the body language, tone of voice, and incongruous smiles. Only an actor can give a good speech if they don’t believe what they are saying. The other side can always tell when our candidate is full of it.

If you’ve given many speeches, you probably know it’s difficult to give a great one if the audience isn’t ready to hear what you have to say. When the audience doesn’t respond to your jokes, when they aren’t moved by your rhetoric, it’s wise to tone it down. It is only when the audience trusts us, believes in what we are saying, and is ready to become inspired, that they will fully let their guard down. Obama gives great speeches, because we give permission.

Most audience members have a set of concerns they bring to any talk. It’s not until these concerns are answered that they will let themselves be moved. This is a rational process. Black liberals may need to hear that Obama understands and can identify with the historical experience of racism in the United States. Conservatives may need to hear he understands why they believe differently than him. “Latté liberals” may want to hear he can think globally and work diplomatically. Moderate Republicans may want to hear he is pragmatic and able to compromise.

It is not mere rhetorical brilliance which allows Obama to integrate these seemingly contradictory positions. Nor is it merely a subtle and sophisticated intelligence, though he posses both of these in ample degrees. Rather, it is his social genius and apparent level of personal development which are most striking. As the conservative columnist, David Brooks, has noted regarding his personal encounters with Obama, the man is able to see deeply into what is really going on with people, often far more so than those people themselves.

Most of America’s greatest President’s - whether Lincoln or FDR, Kennedy or Reagan - have been great rhetoricians. If there is a sense that Obama could become one of them, perhaps it is because he shares numerous characteristics in common with so many of them - his inexperience, his open agenda, his ability to unify, and his charisma. Few candidates have shared as much in common as Obama does with so many Presidents consistently ranked in surveys as our best.

Every generation in American politics, that rare gem appears, an electable Presidential candidate who inspires us to bridge our divides and aspire to great deeds. But we want to know whether they can function within the divisive and corrupt system so many of us hope they will change. So the media, other candidates, and the electorate poke holes in them with a barrage of ruthless accusations.

It doesn’t matter whether they are true. We want to know whether the gem is solid. So we hammer it and carve at it and bury it in mud. And all too often, in the end, the gem is shattered or drowned in filth and the candidate expires.

But perhaps it is true Obama is no jewel. How can we distinguish greatness in a speaker from mere flare? And is it true that our greatest Presidents have been our greatest public speakers or do we make their speeches great because we admire their presidencies? Finally, is it possible for us to vet our candidates without destroying them, and if so, how can we do this?

Management trends tend to be a bit like the Mao Suit. Strategy, innovation, change management, consulting: when we find out how to do it, we apply our solutions universally, like some vaccine against eccentricity. Even as we talk of discovering specific business cultures, we have developed a universal culture of business that stifles and stultifies, even as it prods us to find our niche.

But perhaps this is unfair. Most management solutions are an aid to the discovery of originality. Just because all pants have two legs doesn’t mean there aren’t incredible variations in size, color, and style. Crafting a mission statement or doing a SWAT analysis should provide a space for our style to emerge in the same way the basic structure of pants do. But somehow it doesn’t seem to work like this. 

Perhaps the most salient feature of information age businesses is their overwhelming complexity. Writing a business plan should make running a business easier, but often times it is the most difficult part. The simple fact is that implementing the solutions to complexity are often the most challenging part of running a business. Rather than adapting the solutions to our own unique culture, we adapt ourselves to the solutions. Thus, we learn how to do strategy, write business plans, and set up policy guidlines. And it is these solutions that have become our Mao Suits.

The problem it that the variations in business structure and culture are staggering and more like snowflakes than the sizes and shapes of a human body. Every business is different, with its own structure, size, strategy, and market conditions. So also are the employees different, with their own unique skills and capacities, motivations, aspirations, visions, and values. The differences are structural and cultural. And we all too often forget that they are developmental as well.

For a business to thrive; for it to unleash the full potential of it’s employees; for it to build a unique culture and find its niche: it is essential that the management tools it uses remain tools. So many of these tools and procedures are a blessing and a necessity. But all too often they leave us living under the hammer or cut to shreds as we attempt to use them. 

 We wake to find ourselves as if abandoned on some remote island whose whereabouts are unknown. “And you may find yourself in another part of the world,” sings David Byrne almost 3000 years later, “And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife. And you may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?” Perhaps it is only the journey we can know the nature of. Perhaps our origins will forever remain shaded beneath the mists of a fading horizon we cannot reach back into, try as we may. At times glorious, at times absurd, perhaps this play of the Gods will always remain a mystery we cannot but help to struggle through - and sometimes sing of. And so we forever throw ourselves back into the ocean of existence and try once more to brave the sweeping currents and bring our comrades home, or somehow reconcile ourselves to the islands we have been cast adrift on. “But he could not save them from disaster, hard as he strove - the recklessness of their own ways destroyed them all.” And so each of us is left to our own devices, to craft the boats that will carry us to that distant shore we so long for.

Why is it we so often fail to grasp the majesty of the world as soon as we consider the world of human grasping? Why does it somehow seem that the sphere of political reason is a profane realm and that in order to preserve our purity we must remove ourselves from it?

Politics is a moral realm after all. Through the political process, we set the conditions which will impact all of the actions of all of the members of our society and through them the world. So, in a sense, we play God through politics. By asking how humans ought to live and working with others to attain to the conditions which will allow them to live that way, we play God in the act of creation. But before we can shape the world as a God would, we must look at the world through the eyes of God. Not only must we consider everything and how the great puzzle of human society is pieced together, but we must tend to everything. And if we are to act morally, we must tend to it all with care. To participate in a political democracy is to tend to all things. Of course, this is far too much to ask of mere mortals such as ourselves. The only problem is that once we enter the political realm, we can only escape from considering and caring for everything by denying our powers. After all, even if we choose to do nothing, it is a choice to let things be. And if we know how things are and know what they will become, the choice to let things be is really a choice to let things become. By letting the homeless person be, we are often letting them become despairing alcoholics. By letting business be, we are often letting it become monopolistic or exploitative or what have you. Of course, there are always problems involved in doing something as well. The point is that we cannot escape having an impact once we enter the political realm - whether we are activist or laisez faire.