So it was a busy first week for the Obama administration. Some people on the left, like the ever Obama-phobic Paul Krugman as well as One City’s own Master of Dharmic Ceremonies GZA, think the economic stimulus package and President Obama’s inaugural address, respectively, both leave much to be desired. I think Paul Krugman is a brilliant but jealous man, and I think GZA just woke up on the wrong side of his Gomden that morning.

But look what else Obama has already done: the eradication of the egregious Mexico City Rule which both Dubya and Reagan enacted, the reinvigoration of environmental protections and empowerment of states to strengthen emissions standards, and the order to close down Guantanamo prison. Not bad for a first four days.

Mr. President, if you could divert some funding to meditation, activism, and arts nonprofits tomorrow, we’d be pretty psyched over here.

But my pressing question is about a smaller and simpler new rule.

This new rule is somehow getting more play in the press than the repeal of the Mexico City Rule (gotta love the mainstream media – have you watched Fox News this week btw? Pretty great stuff. Apparently the terrorists are headings straight from Gitmo to your house, where they are planning to eat your firstborn child with a rusty spoon.).

My question is about the picture above, and Dubya’s eight-year “dress” rule that no man enter the oval office without wearing a jacket. On his first day at the desk, President Obama (should we call him simply H now?) let himself be photographed without a jacket, yet still wearing one of the narrow range of tie colors that elected officials feel send the right message for public consumption.

Now here’s the interesting thing: A big part of me thinks Dubya was more Buddhist than Obama on this point.

The idea that one should uplift one’s mind (and by bodily extension, one’s physical appearance) when entering a sacred space is central  to Zen, Tibetan, and Shambhala Buddhism. It’s the idea of Sunday finest every day, or at least when appropriate. The Oval Office is where the most sacred work of our country is done. I don’t mean sacred in the religious sense (the inauguration shredded separation of church and state more than enough for my tastes). I mean sacred in the “you better pay attention cause this moment is important” sense. It is a special place where decisions affecting every man woman and child on Earth get worked out. That’s almost 7 billion people. To enter such a room, you gotta bring your A-game. That’s why these sacred-secular-humanist traditions of mindfulness focus on bodily presentation as part of their practice. Where the body goes, the mind follows. And where the minds of our leaders go, we all get taken, interdependently

I think maybe, just maybe, Dubya got this rule right. There, I said it. Too bad he got so much else wrong.

As a final note, I was shocked to learn from my parents that their Buddhist teacher, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, had a high respect for Ronald Reagan, and a deep sense of mockery toward Jimmy Carter. Apparently he felt Reagan looked like a leader and had physical dignity, and he thought Jimmy Carter was just plain sloppy. This is of course sort of shocking, because by any real examination Carter was a true humanitarian who also said most of what Al Gore has said (30 years earlier), and President Reagan was…well…Ronald Reagan was a sentient being.

But maybe the quality of leadership is as much in the appearance as in the essence, no? Maybe that was why Bush was so tremendously effective at what he did (effective, not good).

What do you think?