Obama's government by consensus

You've read it here first: Barack Obama is nuts. My diagnosis is based on the popular American saying: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results."

In the past 13 months, Obama has sat down several times with the Republican opposition to try to get some agreement on matters of national importance. He's visited Republican leaders at their homes. He's held meetings with Congressional representatives. He's invited Republicans into his office. And each time, they said they appreciated the gesture, before they continued to attack him.

Obama took this to a new level last Thursday, when he met with members of Congress to discuss reform of the U.S. health-care system. But after seven hours, "Neither side had moved an inch." Those words are from the BBC; even CNN seemed to have grown tired of the whole thing. During this opportunity for dialogue, high-ranking Republicans, including Eric Cantor and John McCain, still complained to Obama that he wasn't listening to them.

This is one of those cases when everybody involved is simply doing the wrong thing. And Obama, as the guy in charge, has to take the most responsibility. The president, whose party has the largest majority in a generation, doesn't have to listen to all the whiners. That's not how the American system works. It's not Africa.

African-style leadership

Obama's African roots betray what I think is a definite African influence. In traditional society, the village elders — and often the villagers themselves — aim in all situations not for a majority vote, but for a consensus. Because everyone contributes to the consensus and agrees to live by it, society is strengthened.

I saw this myself in my journeys across West Africa. Bus passengers in Burkina Faso discussed whether to pay the usual bribes at the border. Ivorians discussed whether to share what they had with others. Villagers in Togo discussed what to do with a girl who had run away from home.

When one of these situations arose, all other activity stopped. Both main arguments were made and translated into all the languages spoken by those present. Everyone got a chance to offer an opinion or a suggestion. Moral issues were weighed against each other: the good versus the greater good. And step by step, a rationale was found that enabled everyone to live with the consensus that emerged.

They made an informed decision, put it behind them, and moved on. No bribes were paid; food was shared; and the girl was sent back to her cruel parents, because a worse fate awaited her on the streets of Lomé.

A different game

In Kenya, Obama would be a fantastic president. But in America, what he's doing is just not working. The Republicans are playing a completely different game (which they're entitled to do).

Since 2006, they've become experts in asymmetric warfare. Last year, they used procedural means to delay or derail 80 percent of all legislation. They are continuing to follow Karl Rove’s advice of attacking their adversary on his strengths. Obama’s strengths are his popularity, which they are eroding one percentage point at a time; his character, which they and their allies at The Wall Street Journal and Fox News continue to malign daily; and his good nature, which they constantly put to the test.

Obama can win only if he starts to be less like Jesus ("turn the other cheek") and more like Mace Windu ("kick butt"). With such ineffective government, it's no wonder voters are abandoning both the Democrats and the Republicans. And it's no wonder the "tea party" supporters — with their message that all government is bad — are becoming the fastest-growing movement in the country.