Because people generally see leadership as synonymous with decisiveness — recall Harry S. Truman's "the buck stops here" — the notion of embracing opposing ideas can seem wishy-washy. It's easy to think: "Just decide! Is it security or ideals? Do you love the banks or hate them? Are we for unity or diversity?" However, I side more with F. Scott Fitzgerald's view of intelligence:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."

It is Obama's inclination to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time that explains why he took the time to articulate the opposing view rather than simply say: "Come on; let's be bi-partisan." He carefully laid out the conflicting models: on one hand, we are ideologically opposed and are expected to act that way (and represent our bases); on the other hand, we are expected to move America forward. These responsibilities are opposed but is there a way to overcome the tension between them?

He consistently lays out the opposing models, not to set up an either/or choice, but to begin the thinking process toward an integrative solution. This process may feel a bit messy to observers, who would prefer not the see the sausage-making process up close and personal, but I am heartened by Obama's thinking pattern. It is the harder approach — to attempt to overcome apparent trade-offs — but it is the form of intelligence that can produce breakthrough solutions that move an organization or a country forward.

An interesting article on intelligence and leadership. I feel this may explain why some citizens prefer to support a leader like Bush, who is known for his purported decisiveness, versus a leader like Obama, who takes a different approach to analyzing strategy and tactics.