Equanimity as a Weakness? - I Think Not

During a recent television interview, Barack Obama was asked if he thought that the unusual bit of fiery passion he showed and the few hard hitting remarks he made in his acceptance speech were enough to quell the criticism that he isn't passionate or tough enough to be president. Apparently, many people seem to find his emotional control and his ability to greet questions, criticisms or alternative ideas with a thoughtful response rather than an impulsive reaction off-putting.

Just as advertisers know how to word deceptive claims in a way that makes them more believable and job candidates can cleverly frame their weaknesses as strengths, political opposition and the media can

present strengths as though they are actually weaknesses. What's worse, is that they can make us believe it.

Obama's ability to remain above the fray in many contentious situations, his tendency to think before he speaks, his willingness to thoughtfully consider before he responds is actually being presented as a weakness? I don't get that. Last time I checked, equanimity was a strength. Let's review.

According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary equanimity means “mental or emotional stability or composure, esp. under tension or strain; calmness; equilibrium.” Barack Obama's picture, along with the Dalai Lama's and Mother Teresa's, may as well appear next to this definition. He embodies this quality called equanimity to a degree to which most of us can only aspire. And yet, somehow this is a problem? This means he isn't passionate enough to be president? His equanimity is a hindrance? That's funny, it's one of the most important reasons why I think Obama is well-suited for the presidency. What temperament could possibly be more perfect for such a challenging and stressful job?  Whether you preferred Hillary (as I originally did) or you're a fan of John McCain's, you've got to at least concede that Obama has the corner on the equanimity market.

Perhaps the problem is not Obama's equanimity but our misunderstanding of it. Truthfully, so few of us are really able to control our emotions and remain calm in highly charged situations, that maybe we just can't relate to someone who is. We think “there must be something wrong with him” ... "how can he be so calm about everything?” ... "he just must not care deeply enough; if he did he'd get more worked up...he'd show some more fire.” Take it from me – a neurotic in good standing, a person who has spent a lifetime making worry into an art form, someone who feels very strongly and cares so deeply about things that sometimes I think I am too sensitive for this world – and yet has repeatedly been told “how can you be so calm all the time?”...”you're so relaxed about everything”...”your so laid-back.” Yep, I can vouch for the fact that a placid facade does not necessarily indicate a lack of emotion or a passion deficit.

Equanimity is a strength alright, but it is also a rarity. People just see so little of it that they've become suspicious. Never mind that religion, philosophy and psychology have been touting the benefits and desirability of equanimity for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Think about it. Except for that odd fig tree incident, Jesus exemplified equanimity in his approach to being in the world. How about the Buddha? He laid out the path to developing equanimity over two thousand years ago. Modern psychologists? They've been trying to get us to control our emotions to help us improve social relationships, make better decisions and become happier people for decades. Are we now going to suddenly claim that this is all bunk?...that fire and brimstone, machismo and bullying, big talk and impulsive action are what the world needs now?

We need to stop and think for a minute. Is it a show of passion that we care most about, or is it genuine passion for our fellow citizens, the common good, and the future of our world that really matters to us? I'll take the latter any day.

Comments

[Margaret (Nanny Goats)]

Speaking as a person who has been accused of being cold-hearted and unemotional or in kinder words, "even-keeled", I, of course, completely respect someone who can keep their emotions in check. To me, an over-emotional response is just dramatics, unneccesary and unproductive. You still FEEL things, even if you don't outwardly emote them all the time.

[Dr. Nicole Sundene]

Thanks I love learning a new word...especially one I can use :D Great points here!

[Lori]

Margaret,

Couldn't agree with you more. Overly-emotional responses are counter-productive and, in the case of national leadership, downright dangerous.

Dr. Nicole,

Nice to hear from you! Glad to be able to add something useful to your already impressive base of knowledge.

[phhhst]

I thought this was a great post. I think you'd like this other post I ran across today.
http://gracedavis.typepad.com/

[Lori]

phhhst,

Thanks so much for the link. The post at http://gracedavis.typepad.com is witty, passionate and inspirational. I encourage others to take a look as well. She is right...we have to gently but firmly clear up the many misperceptions about Barack Obama in particular, and the Democrats in general, being propagated by the Republican spin doctors.

[Elaine]

I hadn't heard the criticism that he lacks passion or toughness (just experience.) People don't accomplish all Obama has done in his life without passion or toughness. I wonder if those complaints come from people who don't agree with Obama's values/political leanings in the first place.

[Lori]

Elaine,

You're right that it takes passion and strength to accomplish what Obama has accomplished and that it is probably the people who don't share his values who are questioning his passion. Unfortunately, while both political parties sometimes bend the truth a bit to smear their opponent, the Republicans seem to have taken it to a new level this time around.

Is it just me or does it seem that the McCain/Palin campaign can twist the truth and lie outright and pretty much get away with it? Several of their ads and jabs at Obama are blatantly exaggerated and sometimes outright lies and yet no one besides liberal bloggers and political websites seem to be noticing or commenting.

Where is the press, what happened to investigative, unbiased journalism? And what happened to American citizens who no longer seem to be able to check into things for themselves and discover the truth or fallacy of comments and attacks before they swallow them hole? I guess you can tell that I am disgusted. We need to get back to the issues and back to reality.

[Alison]

Well, folks, in case you hadn't noticed we are living Orwell's Animal Farm. It is so disheartening to see how at least half of the country has been dumbed down...they make emotional decisions to support a candidate based on some random something (the fact that the VP candidate had to go through several community colleges before she could finish her degree for example) and because she seems like 'one of them' they are wildly supportive without rationally considering, do we really want an average American helping to run the country? I'm an average American and I have no business running the country I can tell you.

They distrust Obama because they make emotionally based decisions and anyone who seems the least bit rational or intellectually inclined is highly suspicious. He certainly isn't like them.

How anyone could be more presidential than Obama I'm sure I don't know. If anyone wants me to email them an interesting piece that starts:

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."

* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

let me know. It gets much better from there and when it's laid out like this, you just shake your head and wonder how we ended up in such an alternative universe.

[Lori]

Alison,

Thanks for your amusing and spot-on comments. Bill Clinton recently said that you can't tell Americans how to vote...they all vote for different reasons. Some vote based on gender, some on race, some on experience, some on particular issues to the exclusion of all others. He was being very diplomatic, and while I usually agree with him, I don't this time.

I think that we should tell Americans how to vote, although not for whom to vote. Shouldn't we all be voting on the issues first and then on who we think has the leadership qualities required to put their positions on the issues into action? How Americans can vote someone into office because they are the same race or the same gender or because they have a nice smile, but, whose stand on issues of importance will work against that voter's best interests is beyond me. I studied psychology because I love to figure out why people behave the way they do, but what I have learned is that sometimes there's just no figuring.