I have to say Colin Powell was reasonably high in my estimations already but this has really made me respect him a lot more. He is spot on about what is happening on the US political scene; this race could and should have been a lot more interesting and I was hoping that McCain would have the courage, eloquence and intelligence to make the same arguments Powell has made.

At the moment this election is turning into a procession and, bar some major catastrophe, Obama currently looks on course for a small landslide. The Republican movement needs to take a long hard look at itself and start assessing whether their move to the right and ridiculous pandering to the loud and well-organised christian conservative minority really makes sense anymore.

I wasn’t sure what General Powell meant by “transformational,” so I did a little research on the subject and found this excellent synopsis of Transformational Leadership.

Towards the end of the article is this interesting tidbit:

“One of the traps of Transformational Leadership is that passion and confidence can easily be mistaken for truth and reality. Whilst it is true that great things have been achieved through enthusiastic leadership, it is also true that many passionate people have led the charge right over the cliff and into a bottomless chasm. Just because someone believes they are right, it does not mean they are right.”

Given the full meaning of transformational leadership, I would have to agree with General Powell that Barack Obama would be a transformational president.

Excellent post, Neil. I also thought Powell’s statements were straight to the heart of what’s wrong with the current GOP.

The culture war being waged by party apparatchiks and overpaid rightwing hacks has little resonance when the country needs intelligent leadership.

…he attacks the Minnesota representative who asked the media to investigate which members of Congress are anti-American…

I heard this and thought of Samuel Johnson ::

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

You know the Republicans are shit-out of ideas when they scream “anti-American!” at everyone who challenges them.

There used to be a time when being a Republican was a statement of pride in small-government and individualism.

Thanks Aaron. In relation to yours and thomas’ comments, it’s going to be fascinating to watch what happens to the GOP over the next few years, particularly in regards to the tension between the dogmatic evangelicals you’ll find mostly in the south and those small state fiscal conservatives you used to find on the coasts & in New England (yeah, this is a huge generalisation, but still broadly true, I think).

Assuming the public acts as the polls predict and the skinny guy with the funny name gets elected, I suspect that ‘Crazy Base World’ (Copyright John Stewart) will immediately announce that the Republicans lost because John McCain wasn’t one of them, and will hold aloft someone like Mike Huckabee as the new Christian conservative standard bearer. Meanwhile, the Wall St Republicans will reply “no, YOU’RE the reason we lost” and support someone who’s more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. The nomination fight could be very bloody. Beyond that, I’d agree with conservative blogger Ross Douthat (http://tinyurl.com/6bo8lf) that the GOP echo chamber of pundits & opinion makers – which doesn’t seem to have noticed how badly out of sync their party is with their country – needs replacing with new blood.

This matters because I don’t think it’s good for the Democrats or America to have one party enjoy the kinds of vast majorities being predicted at present. At least, not in the long term. Contrary to partisan dogma, some Republicans are pretty effective lawmakers, and I think there’s also something to be said for having an opposition party strong enough to act against the worst excesses of whichever party’s in power.

Neil,

Do you expect the Republicans to split in two over this? Frankly, it would be a good thing to seperate fiscal conservatives from religious nutters, but, alas, they need each other, I think.

Stll, lets wait until the democrats actually win. It is not guaranteed yet.

douglas,

I was discussing this at the weekend. As you say, it seems very unlikely. How would the GOP replace the level of cash-flow and activism that comes from the religious wing of the party? A softened agenda might produce some kind of compromise but that, to my mind, would not be sustainable in the long-term. Would these aforementioned elements of the party be willing to hand over their money and time if the GOP were just to campaign more quietly on the controversial social issues and push harder in other areas with a renewed agenda? Somehow I doubt it.

douglas,

I think thomas pretty much answered your question there. No, I don’t think there’d ever be a formal split reminiscent of SDP splitting from Labour, but neither do I think that this uneasy rapprochement is sustainable without power. To dig themselves out of the electoral rut they’re in, they’re going to have to talk more about populist economic & small government issues and drop the nonesense about how many babies their opponent has killed or whether he or she is a ‘real American’. Trouble is, this change of strategy might win you votes, but it’ll lose you volunteers, It’s a trade-off I wouldn’t want to make.

Twitterers note that Jay Rosen (http://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu) is insightful and well worth following on precisely this topic at the moment.