Don Bemont

Join Date 06/2003

Leadership and President Bush

In his article, COL Gene asked:

Is George W. a strong leader?

That thread has gone off in a different direction -- more a question of General Tommy Franks and his viewpoints, than a discussion of leadership. Since I think that the issue of the President's leadership is central to the election, this is my attempt to get back to that original point.

The word leader is one of those words which needs some analysis, because it is an abstraction with more than one meaning.

In times of disaster or crisis, there is a human tendency (instinct maybe?) to close ranks and seek a strong individual to follow. In fact, as long as the individual currently in place does a few specific things, people tend to project the quality of leadership upon him, more out of their own need than out of any rational thought process. What does the individual need to do to receive this anointment? Largely, it is a matter of projecting certitude and active direction. We need these things in times of crisis, and we call this leadership when it is provided.

Thus, we tend to remember our wartime presidents as our strongest leaders. Thus, national leaders have typically favored wars. Thus presidents like Bill Clinton have ached for a national crisis to face. Thus, Rudy Guliani became lionized in the wake of 9/11. Thus, even ancient republics sought "dictators" in time of war.

(This also explains why the most salient scene in Fahrenheit 911 remains the footage of George Bush in the classroom in the moments after the 9/11 attacks. There is no logic to the criticism whatsoever, but the pictures undermine the gut level image of "leader in crisis" and it has been crucial to the Republican strategy to convince America not to watch the film. If it weren't for that scene, the movie in and of itself might have convinced people to vote for Bush due to the extreme nature of Moore's claims. But that footage is damaging on a visceral level. If I were the Karl Rove of the Democrats, my final advertising blitz would be to show that imagery repeatedly in the swing states. It would be ugly and unfair, but I guarantee it would be effective.)

The schoolhouse footage aside, George Bush, in public, since 9/11 has fulfilled this role as a leader. His certitude may or may not be "correct" or helpful, but he has been unwavering. His "direction" of attacking Iraq as a response to Al Qaeda may or may not be "correct" or helpful, but it has been active and provided a clear outlet for out outrage.

There is a different meaning of leadership, however. This is more future oriented; it is more proactive than reactive. To get this across, I have borrowed a typical list of leadership principles:

1. Know yourself and seek self-improvement
2. Be technically proficient.
3. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions.
4. Make sound and timely decisions. Use good problem solving, decision making, and planning tools.
5. Set the example. Be a good role model for you employees. They must not only hear what they are expected to do, but also see.
6. Know your people and look out for their well-being. Know human nature and the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.
7. Keep your people informed. Know how to communicate with your people, seniors, and other key people within the organization.
8. Develop a sense of responsibility in your people. Develop good character traits within your people that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.
9. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished. Communication is the key to this responsibility.
10.Train your people as a team. Although many so called leaders call their organization, department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of people doing their jobs.
11. Use the full capabilities of your organization.

Truthfully, if we used this as an evaluation for our employee, the President of the United States, George Bush, he would score rather poorly. Items 1,2,3 4,7,9,10, and 11, in particular, would merit "unsatisfactory" grades.

I am not going to go through these items one by one, because the length of my article would then discourage most from reading it. However, just taken at face value, the United States is currently bitterly divided, and we have had an extremely difficult time subduing a third rate country. Yet, the man cannot see (or admit to seeing) anything that he would do better, if given another chance.

I am sure that partisans would say that it takes cooperation from all quarters to work as a team, and that the divisions are not George Bush's fault. The point is that leadership is the quality of being able to unite people -- real human beings, as they are. And George Bush has not managed to do that.

Therefore, taking the first definition of a "crisis"/reactive leader George Bush fits. He has certitude and direction -- which is why one side of the argument is so sure that leadership is one of the President's outstanding qualities. However, taking the broader, more proactive meaning of the word, the man fails miserably, which explains why so many other citizens are so bewildered by this particular claim about Bush.

democrat

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

although i have no idea why the term proactive came to being (one acts or reacts but ive yet to see someone proact), i gotcher point. seems to me youve provided an accurate answer to the question cg posed.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Good article Don with the following caveats:
The statement about leaderrs looking for a crisis, is this your opinion or something a President has said?
Also, since you are a voter you definitely have the right to grade a leaders performance, but what is your background for the grades you assigned to W? Since those are pretty much stariaght from the military's leader development program I am curious.

Also how can you judge 4,7,9,11 when you are not working next to him. I have found it is easy to say "they don't have a clue" when you have no idea about planning, and training that has gone on prior to your judgement.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You are correct. 0n the other hand, George W. is able to lead those who are predisposed to his position. Another measure of leadreship is have you been able to achieve your objectives. On that one George W. will most likely get better grades. He came into office with the objectives of cutting taxes on the wealthy, shifting the tax burden, reducing corporate oversight, undoing environmental regulations, helping the mature energy and drug companies and deposing Saddam. He did accomplish most of those objectives. When asking the question are these objectives in the best interest of the majority of our country long term, the answer is a resounding NO.

Thus the question is the type of leadership and programs what America needed, again we see a resounding NO. The irony is that many of the Bush supporters do not and will not benefit from his policies. The middle income Republicans will not benefit from the Bush economic and tax policies and the increased debt he is creating will burden them and their children for several generations to come!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Whether you agree with the policies or not, one can agree (if they're rational) that strong leadership can be measured by how much of ones agenda they are able to accomplish.

Leadership doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is all relative. Bush, in 4 years, has accomplished more than Bill Clinton did in 8 years both domestically and internationally.

I would challenge any anti-Bushite here to articulate more significant achievements in Bill Clinton's 8 years in office. Because, like it or not, it's pretty easy to illustrate Bush's accomplishments. And whether youa gree with those accomplishments or not, they are deeds that require strong leadership.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Good job answering for Don Colgene! You start reasonably enough and turn it into a screed similar to what you post on your own blog.
Were you actually a Col are are you some walter mitty?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am a retired Army Colonel. I served 5 years in the Regular Army and 25 yeare in the Army Reserve. I was a nuclear weapons officer and later an Army Finance officer . I had three commands and am a graduate of the Army War College. I retired from the Army Reserve in 1993. My civilian career includes VP at a bank and the COO of the third largest school system in PA. I was a member of the Republican Committee in PA during the mid 70's and ran the campaigns of two Republicans in Chester County Pa. I am a moderate that could not be more opposed to the policies of both the conservatives and the liberals.

I published a book that looks at the Bush policies and sites data and opinions from 28 nationally recognized sources. My book is, "Four More For George W?"

Successfully updated karma reason!

although i have no idea why the term proactive came to being (one acts or reacts but ive yet to see someone proact), i gotcher point.

Not too entusiastic about the word myself.

In my line of work, teaching, the reactive kind of leadership would be the teacher who is able to step into a chaotic classroom and restore order.

The second kind of leadership would be the teacher who runs his classroom in a way that makes chaos highly unlikely in the first place. By projecting a clear sense of purpose, having materials in place, knowing the material well, etc., he makes it vastly more likely that the good of the order will prevail. Administrators have referred to this as proactive so frequently that I am afraid I picked up the word, but I hereby retract it and hope that this analogy will do in its place.

The statement about leaderrs looking for a crisis, is this your opinion or something a President has said?

During Bill Clinton's presidency, this was a running theme of moderate analysis of his disposition. I read it several times, but I doubt I could come up with sources now.

However, this is my general read on history. Whether looking at ancient, medieval, colonial, or modern times, I would conclude that nothing benefits a leader more than a crisis, particularly one where there is a clear, foreign enemy. It gets pretty divisive to point this out about recent leaders, so I hate to hijack my own thread by doing so -- but when Jimmy Carter borrowed William James words to make energy conservation the moral equivalent of war, he was picking up on the progressive effort to turn this aspect of human nature to some more civilize purpose. If you want the people to set aside their own personal pleasures and interests and follow you, then a crisis is your friend.

Also how can you judge 4,7,9,11 when you are not working next to him.

I see your point, and bemoan it. In the age of screen coverage of our leaders, we have so little to hang our judgments upon.

However, it does seem remarkable to me that a country with our military might has not been able to do a better job of restoring order in Iraq, which has a bearing on #11, at least. Further, the administration articulated a belief about the handling of prisoners, which, in practice, turned out to be (in my view) a horror show and disgrace -- more objectively, it was counterproductive for our country. Link I take him at his word that he does not approve of how this played out on the ground, so this would be reflected in #7 and 9.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Our military power is more in the elimination of a opposing force that can be located. Given that condition, no force on earth can withstand our attack. The issue of establishing control of a populated area where many of the population look at you as an invador is another matter. That why the military leadership estimated that it would take 300,000-400,000 boots on the ground to maintain order. Also the fact we bypassed areas of unrest came back to haunt as well as toy 400,000 former military that mented into the population.

Bush had no idea what he was getting into and refused to listen to those who did. He also had one other major problem, we could not field an army of 300,000-400,000 and rotate and support that size force with the reduced military and other committments we have at the present time.

Successfully updated karma reason!