"Do we wish to be led by leaders? Leadership on the battle and playing fields is critical to winning, but can we subsist without leadership, for example, in the White House? Notwithstanding Axelrod's success at portraying him otherwise, Obama is not a leader: he is extremely intelligent, but by all accounts is slow to make decisions and is reluctant to rule by fiat. Some have called Obama a Wilsonian president, but is there still room in the Oval Office for such a person, who perhaps represents the antithesis of leadership, in an unforgiving twenty first century which brooks no delay?"
Regrettably, Obama has done little in the interim to dispel this assessment, and I wondered whether Friedman had reached a similar conclusion, albeit belatedly. But having read through Tom's column and conducted a word search, the word "leadership" appears only twice in the text of the op-ed, and there is no attempt at a definition.
So what does Friedman say in his essay? Sadly, we are presented with the usual tripe involving a "Grand Bargain":
"We know what to do — a Grand Bargain: short-term stimulus to ease us through this deleveraging process, debt restructuring in the housing market and long-term budget-cutting to put our fiscal house in order. None of this is easy and the economy will not be fixed overnight; it will take years. But there is every chance it will get healed if our two parties construct the Grand Bargain we need."
We know what to do? Who is this mysterious we? Apparently Tom thinks he knows what to do. As I understand it, Tom equals we.
But where is there anything novel in what Friedman suggests? We've already seen short-term stimulus, which included money showered upon the Department of Energy, which gave rise to Solyndra, and funds shoveled into the maw of the Justice Department, which spawned $16 muffins. As billionaire Solyndra investor and major Obama campaign contributor George Kaiser stated following the announcement of Obama's 2009 stimulus package:
"There's never been more money shoved out of the government's door in world history and probably never will be again than in the last few months and the next 18 months."
A lot of good that did us, and today, to the chagrin of fellow Democrats, Obama appears to have reversed course, and is focused on budget-cutting.
There are ordinarily many different routes to achieve any given goal, but leadership is demanded by those at the head of the convoy. What is leadership? Friedman fails to provide an answer. Again, as observed in "Did You Take Leadership 101 in College" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-you-take-leadership-101-at-college.html):
"Although I think 'leadership' should be studied and can perhaps be improved, this does not mean that it can be practiced on a 'virtuoso level' by almost anyone. What are its components? Certainly, charisma, which cannot be taught, is one of them. Add to the list, a willingness to accept risk - again something for which we are not all wired or suited. Abundant confidence and an ability to make snap decisions? Absolutely, but once again, owing to genetic and environmental factors, this is not present in all of us.
What about intelligence? I'm sure it's helpful for any prospective leader, but in and of itself does not make for leaders. Perhaps someone out there can tell me the average IQ of an NFL quarterback - I am certain it is not inordinately high. Also, although I was never impressed with the raw intelligence of Ronald Reagan, he was certainly a leader."
Although intelligent and a talented orator, Obama is a procrastinator and not capable of leadership. Can he guide us through the current economic morass? Probably not; however, time and seasonality will also play their role in an ultimate recovery.
Meanwhile, the Republicans appear hard pressed to offer anything more palatable. Is Romney really the best leader they can offer?
No comments:
Post a Comment