From Catchphrase to Cliche

Barack Obama's election may be one of the most exciting in history.  Much has been made, because of the historic nature of the event.  The most interesting thing over the last several weeks has been the constant references to Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals.  The book is definitely worth reading.  Pundits like to draw the Lincoln/Obama comparisons; national legislators from Illinois, lawyers, overcame difficult family circumstances, and the most notable: Lincoln brought down slavery and Obama is a result of the action.

A new comparison emerged in the weeks after the election finished: The Team of Rivals.  This idea was alluded to somewhat during the campaign, but really too hold in the 2-3 weeks afterward.  So far, it may be a fair assessment, but Obama needs to pull in more rivals.  Bring on Hillary certainly qualifies, Biden qualifies, but his campaign was so short it almost seems like a stretch.  I wonder though, does the Team of Rivals even matter?

I have no personal problem with Obama*, again it's the media pushing it's spin on things.  I've heard the phrase "Team of Rivals" so much lately, it's gone from catch-phrase to cliche.  Having a team of rivals doesn't mean anything really.  It doesn't equal success.  In oder to be successful and avoid groupthink, having people with opposing view points is essential.  That teases out the intricacies of difficult situations and decisions.  It's not guarantee for success, but it does increase the probability.

A team of rivals can be as much of a detriment as a help.  If the team members cannot get along well enough to come to a reasonable decision, then all is lost.  That's one of the problems when we look at the Democrats vs. the Republicans.  Both parties are corrupt morally and neither has the interests in their respective constituents any more than using them to make it through the current election cycle.  They are a team of rivals and they do little to truly improve the nation.  I hear a lot of lip-service, but not a lot of real action.  My point is that a team of rivals is not an automatic recipe for success, though it might improve the chances.  Even though Lincoln had a team of rivals, it was not the reason for the success.  He succeeded because he saw past rivalry in order to pick the best people for the job.  The fact that they were at one time rivals is more an adjective, then a noun in this case.

*That's barring any emerging issues with the Blagojevich fiasco going on a the moment.  So far Obama appears to be innocent of any wrong doing.  I doubt he's got a clean background coming from the Chicago machine zone.  Maybe his goals are lofty enough that he was able to succeed without playing ball too much.  So far it doesn't look like he was willing to play ball with Blagojevich.  I hope that's the case.  That may not save Obama if Blagojevich decides to try and bring Obama down with him.