How Obama Governs

In The Beginning ...: The genesis of Barack Obama's method of operation for governing is traced to his days at Harvard Law School where he attended in 1989-91. It also explains his concept that judges failed to extend the Civil Rights movement to a more righteous conclusion. More on that later. The environment at Harvard during Obama's matriculation was rife of protests and peaceful sit-ins of the Dean's Office and other faculty. Divergent activist groups of blacks, Hispanics and others demanded more diversity among the composition of law professors. They were not advocating quotas or affirmative action, recalls Juan Zuniga, a law student one year behind Obama. Rather, it was a protest of "polemic faculty obsessed with their own ideological agendas but no clue as to what happens in the real world." In this divisive setting, Obama was selected to join The Harvard Review, the most prestigious publication of any law school in America. His peers elected him president/editor of the group his third and final year at Harvard. Zuniga did not know Obama other than to exchange greetings as they passed each other in hallways. However, all the 1,500 law students knew of him because his achievements as first black president/editor of Harvard Law Review were chronicled in the New York Times, Boston Herald and Wall Street Journal. Zuniga said Obama's emergence in the selection process was "a neutral, middle-ground, non-threatening, non-ideological candidate." His impressions of Obama from friends on the Harvard Law Review and faculty were "that he was not perceived as an ideologue by those who knew him. Rather, he has an incredible facility to listen to other people, consider their positions, respect their positions when making a decision and then use his own intellect to reach his own conclusion. He draws talented and respectful people to himself. He makes responsible decisions based on merit and not ideological principles. It is very much worth noting that in many ways he keeps himself above the fray. While a bunch of us were out there trying to take over the Dean's office, Barack was never a meaningful presence at any rallies. I once was on a panel debating Professor Charles Fried (a grade A knucklehead and later Justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Court) about diversification of the faculty, but I don't once remember Barack making any public statements about the issue. I have no doubt he believed we needed a more diverse faculty, but he also knew that the role he had as Editor in Chief of the Law Review meant he could accomplish so much by approaching his task with professionalism without raising an ideological torch and be a rabble rouser. ... If he used the position as a pulpit to become involved in the cultural wars, he (would) have lessen his stature but more importantly weaken the cause that he otherwise might strengthen. In stead, by keeping outside the thickest part of the debate, we could point to him as the type of qualified (also read as non-threatening) candidate with integrity, smarts and people skills who could fit right into the faculty. I don't think we ever dreamed he could become president of the country."
Flash forward to 2008. Obama applied those same principles conceived and tested at Harvard Law School to win the presidency. He listened and weighed input from some very shrewd advisers and experts, made decisions and demanded discipline and loyalty down to the very last volunteer. The only gaffes in the campaign came from Obama himself (rural people clinging to guns and religion) and wife Michelle (for the first time in her life proud to be an American). Willie Brown, California's best and most astute politician ever, proclaimed on MSNBC's Hardball show yesterday Obama ran the best, most disciplined national political campaign he ever witnessed. "It was virtually flawless," he said.

A Diversified Court: In the final weeks of the campaign, Republicans leaped on a statement from Obama in which he told The San Francisco Chronicle he believed the court fell short in its decisions involving civil rights. The full text of Obama's comments were on the Chronicle's website since February. Why it took Republican opposition researchers nine months to bring up the subject may be an indication how dysfunction the campaign was. Their argument was that Obama would appoint judges who legislated from the bench rather than follow the intent of the U.S. constitution. Again, the genesis of that position by Obama goes back to his days at Harvard Law School. Juan Zuniga explains: "In deed, one of the central arguments we tried to overcome was that we were not advocating a simple quota or numbers system. ... Rather, we wanted qualified candidates of diverse backgrounds to be able to introduce the real world context of race and gender into the law. The truth of the matter is America treats a 62-year-old white male grandfather living in Connecticut different than a 34-year-old Guatemalan immigrant single mother living in Arizona. The teaching of the law, by its nature, needs to be to incorporate how society (law enforcement, public schools, employers, landlords, etc.) views and is viewed by these different people. When your faculty is comprised of 90% of older white gentleman who have lived exclusively in New England and have no job experience except for academia, how are they going to make the law relevant in a society they don't reflect? The law is not static and objective in the same way mechanical engineering is and the institutions that teach the law cannot be so arrogant that only a single perspective is valid." It doesn't matter if one agrees with Obama, this is how he formulates his policy decisions. It's been that way since Square One at Harvard Law School.

Full Disclosure: Juan Zuniga practices international and finance law in San Diego. He donated $1,000 to Obama's primary campaign. He is a second cousin in my extended family.