Leadership and President Bush
from 
PolMach Forums
PolMach Forums
In his article, COL Gene asked:
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.
| Is George W. a strong leader? |
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.
JoeUser Forums
