David Brooks, "The Leaderless Doctrine": The Death of Hope and Change?

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

- King James Bible, Revelation 6:8

Do I believe in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? No, but I suppose you could say that with Her Hideousness Catherine Ashton busy chatting up Rouhani and his monster friends in Tehran (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/her-hideousness-catherine-ashton-plays.html), my outlook is something less than sanguine.

Kudos to David Brooks on his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Leaderless Doctrine" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/opinion/brooks-the-leaderless-doctrine.html?_r=0). Pointing to Pew Research Center data indicating that "[f]or the first time in half a century, a majority of Americans say that the U.S. should be less engaged in world affairs" and that "[f]or the first time in recorded history, a majority of Americans believe that their country has a declining influence on what’s happening around the globe," Brooks declares:

"Americans have lost faith in the high politics of global affairs. They have lost faith in the idea that American political and military institutions can do much to shape the world. American opinion is marked by an amazing sense of limitation — that there are severe restrictions on what political and military efforts can do."

Brooks's conclusion:

"We live in a country in which many people act as if history is leaderless. Events emerge spontaneously from the ground up. Such a society is very hard to lead and summon. It can be governed only by someone who arouses intense moral loyalty, and even that may be fleeting."

Is Brooks correct?

Empowered with real-time knowledge by the Internet, are we able to reach more objective, better informed determinations than our leadership? Does this omniscience spawn helplessness, despondency, disaffection and a sense of abandonment? Do we turn inwards to avoid being overwhelmed by the meanness and rapacity of all that surrounds us?

If the US can only be governed by someone who arouses intense moral loyalty, how is such a person to arise from a system that demands moral compromise? Maybe there is no room for ethics in politics.

Obama promised hope and change, but even young voters, who brought him into the Oval Office and kept him there, have lost faith in a president who "found out on the news like the rest of us," i.e. failed to lead. Remarkably, Harvard University's Institute of Politics recently determined that 52 percent of America's youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, now favor throwing Obama out of office (see: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/millennials-abandon-obama-and-obamacare-20131204). The bloom is off the rose; however, there is nothing better waiting in the wings.

But more to the point, can Americans afford to retreat inwards? Will Americans arise from their solipsistic slumber only after an Iranian ICBM, currently under development  (see: http://freebeacon.com/iran-north-korea-secretly-developing-new-long-range-rocket-booster-for-icbms/), falls in their laps?

Well on its way, this rude awakening will most likely arrive with a bang, sure to interrupt our favorite music, messaging and Facebook postings.

David Brooks, "The Leadership Revival": Where to Buy Political Viagra?

What the heck has happened to David Brooks? Why has he suddenly taken to blathering?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Leadership Revival" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/opinion/brooks-the-leadership-revival.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Brooks begins by telling us, "If you are in politics or public life, you probably had some moment of spine-tingling transcendence." But compare Brooks's conclusion with Maureen Dowd's determination (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/maureen-dowd-thunder-road-or-working-on.html) that politicians "are narcissists and, in essence, actors stuck in the same role."

So are politicians idealists who had a moment of "spine-tingling transcendence," or are they lying narcissistic motherfu$%#!s? Unless you are a politically motivated moron, i.e. sit on the editorial board of the New York Times (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/new-york-times-editorial-another-step.html), you probably agree with Maureen.

But back to Brooks's opinion piece. How does Davie propose to ready America's next generation of leaders? Simple:

1. "apprentice yourself to a master craftsman," e.g., Ted Kennedy. Indeed that should bridge a lot of ethical quandaries.
2. "take a reality bath . . . and become a stranger in a strange land," in order to view reality more clearly upon your return. But as someone who has spent much of his life as a stranger in truly strange lands, I can attest to the fact that such a person emerges as a misanthrope, not as a realist.
3. "close off your options" . . . because "the shrewd strategy leads to impotence." Impotence? That does it! I am closing off all of my options later today, unless someone can sell me some political Viagra! At all times, I insist upon being politically erect correct!

Concerning his third step toward improved leadership and governance, Brooks further explains: "Only the person who has burned the ships and committed to one issue has the courage to cast aside the advice of the strategists and actually push through change." Well, I think we've had enough "Change" over the past five years and are prepared for a different course.

But thanks anyway, Mr. Brooks, for the flaccid highfalutin words. Since returning from book writing leave, you have once again made my morning.

Maureen Dowd, "Bottoms Up, Lame Duck": Obama, the Anti-Leader, Avoids Discussion of Unemployment

Holy cannoli, is Maureen Dowd ever pissed off at Obama.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bottoms Up, Lame Duck" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/opinion/dowd-bottoms-up-lame-duck.html?_r=0), Dowd notes Obama's irritability and arrongance while answering a question from ABC News’s Jonathan Karl during yesterday's press conference, marking the hundredth day of his second term. Maureen writes:

"The job of the former community organizer and self-styled uniter is to somehow get this dunderheaded Congress, which is mind-bendingly awful, to do the stuff he wants them to do. It’s called leadership.

He still thinks he’ll do his thing from the balcony and everyone else will follow along below. That’s not how it works."

Obama? Work? He's been having too much fun on the golf course and yukking it up with Conan at Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Leadership? Although leadership can be studied and improved, it cannot be practiced on a virtuoso level by everyone. What are leadership's components? Certainly charisma, which cannot be taught. Add to the list, a willingness to accept risk - again something for which we are not all wired - and  abundant confidence and an ability to make snap decisions, which are not present in all of us.

Or in other words, Obama is the antithesis of a leader: Although intelligent and charismatic, he is slow to make decisions and reluctant to rule by fiat.

But Dowd failed to notice what wasn't discussed at the press conference. Some 5 million Americans are considered long-term unemployed, i.e. they have been looking for work for six months or more, and this number doesn’t include people who have stopped looking for work. Also, almost 50 million Americans are on food stamps. This is a horror story which shouldn't have been ignored by the president.

Dowd did briefly mention in passing Obama's prolonged inaction concerning the ongoing civil war in Syria, which has left more than 70,000 people dead:

"After Syria, Obama discussed another issue where he came across like a frustrated witness to history, rather than shaper of it."

Or what has been labeled "leadership from behind."

Concerning Syria, Obama said the following:

"What we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don't know how they were used, when they were used, who used them. We don't have a chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened . . . I've got to make sure I've got the facts."

You will recall that Obama previously stated that the use by Syria's Bashar al-Assad of chemical weapons would cross a "red line." Well, make no mistake about it - Assad has used chemical weapons against the rebels, as I've unequivocally told those who read this blog (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/chuck-hagel-opines-on-syria-is-americas.html), and as subsequently acknowledged by America's block headed secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel.

However, I also admit that Obama now faces a quandary. Owing to his delay in acting, there are no "moderates" among Syria's rebels. We are only looking at radical jihadists, many with links to al-Qaeda.

What to do? Unfortunately, there is a now a need to made a deal with the devil. The US needs to destroy Syrian airbases, chemical weapons depots and Scud missiles in exchange for some sort of commitment that the rebels will not engage in wanton slaughter of Syria's Alawites when Assad falls, which he will.

No American boots on the ground, of course.

The added benefit: the destruction of the Iranian, Syrian, Hezbollah triumvirate.

Can Obama bring himself to do it? As George Harrison once sang:

"It's gonna take time,
A whole lot of precious time"

Meanwhile, this situation is not getting any better.

Maureen Dowd, "But Can They Eat 50 Eggs?": Hoping Obama Does Not Lay an Egg

Query: Can leadership be learned, and if so, why is it not being taught at universities around the world?

My belief? Although I think leadership can be studied and improved, this does not mean that it can be practiced on a virtuoso level by everyone. What are leadership's components? Certainly charisma, which cannot be taught. Add to the list, a willingness to accept risk - again something for which we are not all wired. Abundant confidence and an ability to make snap decisions? Absolutely, but once again, owing to genetic factors and the manner in which we have been raised, 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, cleverness 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 - but this does not prevent them taking command and guiding their teams to touchdowns. Also, although I was never impressed with the raw intelligence of Ronald Reagan, he was certainly a leader.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "But Can They Eat 50 Eggs?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/dowd-but-can-they-eat-50-eggs.html), Maureen Dowd observes the leadership qualities of Robert Griffin III, who has revived the Washington Redskins:

"His passes thrill, and his partnership with another unpretentious rookie, the compact but fierce running back Alfred Morris, dazzles. But what is really endearing is his spirit: a zeal to make every play count, a work ethic and self-effacing charm that has everyone rooting for him, a leadership style that causes teammates to lift their games. You can see RGIII going up and down the sidelines patting his teammates for encouragement."

Dowd compares Griffin with Obama:

"While Obama prefers to preen as the man alone in the arena — keeping other pols at a distance on stage, parsimoniously handing out thanks and failing to mention his party or top surrogate Bill Clinton in his last victory speech — RGIII never passes up a chance to share credit.

While Obama — who has had a failure to communicate — finds media a bother, Griffin has an easy charm with the press. He never shows aggrievement.

While Obama gets tangled up in his head — trying to decide if he’s too noble to play politics or if spending some evenings schmoozing with pols and flattering them to further his agenda will leave him too depleted — RGIII keeps the joy, intensity and bonhomie in his game."

Or in other words, Obama is the antithesis of a leader: Although intelligent, he is slow to make decisions and reluctant to rule by fiat. In two separate occurrences involving Libya, Obama has demonstrated "leadership from behind."

However, Obama's true day of reckoning is fast approaching. He informed Iran's mullahs that he would not allow them to build an atomic weapon and also declared that he does not bluff. Here's hoping that he was able to learn something from the Libyan crises and does not lay an egg.

Thomas Friedman, "Who's the Decider?": Not Obama

In his latest New York Times opinion piece from India, "Who's the Decider?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/whos-the-decider.html?_r=1&hp), Thomas Friedman has lost much of his exuberance concerning the subcontinent.

In a prior op-ed, "The Last Person" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-last-person.html?ref=opinion), Friedman enthused that a stripped-down, Internet-enabled, wireless tablet, which, with government subsidies, even the poorest Indian families could afford, might free India of its poverty and contribute to global innovation. Today, reality has settled in, and Friedman acknowledges the magnitude of India's corruption, environmental pollution, and absence of governmental direction.

Friedman also uses his latest op-ed as a platform to take a potshot at President Obama:

"Here we are in America again on the eve of a major budgetary decision by yet another bipartisan 'supercommittee,' and does anyone know what President Obama’s preferred outcome is? Exactly which taxes does he want raised, and which spending does he want cut? The president’s politics on this issue seems to be a bowl of poll-tested mush."

Friedman concludes:

"But at the end of the day — whether you are a president, senator, mayor or on the steering committee of your local Occupy Wall Street — someone needs to meld those ideas into a vision of how to move forward, sculpt them into policies that can make a difference in peoples’ lives and then build a majority to deliver on them. Those are called leaders. Leaders shape polls. They don’t just read polls. And, today, across the globe and across all political systems, leaders are in dangerously short supply."

Obama is not a leader? You don't say. In fact, America's Procrastinator-in-Chief is the antithesis of a leader, a man whose own friends say that he "leads from behind," a narcissist now consumed with reelection instead of leading the US out of its current morass.

Over the next 12 months leading up to the 2012 presidential election, expect more indecision from Obama as he takes to the airwaves, defending his dismal record, notwithstanding stubbornly high US unemployment. With each passing week, the financial viability of another EU member will be deemed suspect. Powered by slave labor, business in China will continue to boom. And undeterred in any meaningful way by Obama, Iran will soon threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons.

At the Times, Friedman's fellow pundits will soon focus their barbs upon the absurd "anyone-but-Romney" candidacy of Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination, given that Donald, Rick and Herman have already been milked to the limit and have grown passé.

Another day, and another "bowl of poll-tested mush"? Be careful about what you're impugning, Tom. Unlike politics and politicians, I take comfort in my oatmeal.

Thomas Friedman, "Help Wanted: Leadership": But Where Is Leadership Defined?

I read the title of Thomas Friedman's latest New York Times op-ed, "Help Wanted: Leadership" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/Friedman-help-wanted-leadership.html?_r=1) with excitement. After all, I have long been bemoaning the lack of leadership in the White House and wrote of this flagrant failure more than a year and a half ago in a blog entry entitled "Did You Take Leadership 101 in College" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-you-take-leadership-101-at-college.html):

"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?

Joe Nocera, "What Is Business Waiting For?": Answer . . . Leadership

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "What Is Business Waiting For?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/opinion/nocera-what-is-business-waiting-for.html?hp), Joe Nocera savages Obama's job creation ideas and calls upon American corporations, flush with cash, to ignore short-term profits in order to put people back to work:

"As for the government, President Obama’s idea of job creation is extending unemployment insurance, on the one hand, and painting grandiose pictures of far-off 'green jobs,' on the other. He is bereft of ideas for creating jobs in the here and now. Meanwhile, the Republicans insist — despite mounds of evidence to the contrary — that more tax cuts would create jobs. By now, most Americans have lost hope that our current government will come up with a viable jobs program. It won’t.

I am coming more and more to think that with the government essentially paralyzed for the foreseeable future, the only way we’re going to get jobs is by turning to actual job creators: business itself. With all their cash, companies shouldn’t be waiting for Congress to give them tax incentives to hire people. They should be trying to jump-start the economy — and fend off another recession — by making investments, and hiring workers, that will lead to renewed prosperity."

Corporations will only accept the idea of foregoing short-term profits if they are made to believe that hiring will lead to long-term growth. In order to ready themselves for long-term growth, business leaders need to believe that Washington has a plan - any plan, short-term or long-term - to reignite the economy. Regrettably, Obama, already busy campaigning for reelection, is, as acknowledged by Nocera, bereft of ideas and busy blaming the tsunami in Japan for America's economic woes (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOqPIOMJzWY).

What to do? "Well, now if I were president of this land" (Steppenwolf, "The Pusher"), I would declare war on unemployment. I would convene a gathering of the CEOs of America's 100 largest corporations and disseminate my program for spurring economic growth over the next 12 months, including tax incentives for job creation and a renewed drive to free the US from dependence upon foreign oil. And I would call America's CEOs to the podium, one at a time, asking them to share their ideas, to commit to cooperation, and to pledge immediate expansion of their corporate work forces.

But it all begins with a restoration of confidence, deriving, in turn, from "leadership we can believe in" - something that is sorely lacking in Washington.

Paul Krugman's "The President Surrenders"

Thank goodness, this time I was right: A compromise settlement involving the debt ceiling was indeed reached. However, many liberal commentators are enraged by this bargain and leveling scathing criticism on President Obama.

In his column in today's New York Times entitled "The President Surrenders" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?hp), Paul Krugman intersperses venom directed at Republicans with bile aimed at the president. Krugman's anger at Republicans could be anticipated; however, his furor with the president is unprecedented:

"And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president.

. . . .

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats.

. . . .

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

. . . .

But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite."

Now consider what the New York Times's token conservative, bad boy columnist, Ross Douthat, has to say in his op-ed entitled "The Diminished President" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-diminished-president.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp):

"But winning a debate on points isn’t a substitute for looking like a leader. It’s one thing to bemoan politics-as-usual when you’re running for the White House. It’s quite another to publicly throw up your hands over our 'dysfunctional government' when you’re the man the voters put in charge of it.

. . . .

This leaves Americans to contemplate two possibilities more alarming than debt-ceiling brinkmanship. First, that we’re living through yet another failed presidency. And second, that there’s nobody waiting in the wings who’s up to the task either."

In essence, this is one of those rare instances where Krugman and Douthat are in agreement: Obama lacks the leadership skills to take the US forward.

Where have you previously heard someone bemoan this lack of leadership? Have another look at "Official: Obama Worst President in U.S. History" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/official-obama-worst-president-in-us.html), written almost a year ago, in which I labeled an absence of leadership as the hallmark of the Obama administration. Sadly, nothing has occurred to make me change my opinion.

The War That Wasn't: Netanyahu Demonstrates Leadership

Last Thursday, Hamas terrorists fired an advanced Kornet anti-tank missile from Gaza at a yellow school bus in southern Israel. Hamas had already learned in early March that Israel's Trophy anti-tank missile defense system, which is now protecting Israel's frontline Merkava tanks, is effective (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=210366), so instead, they took aim at defenseless children. If the bus had still been full when the missile struck and many more children had been wounded and had died, Israel would again have gone into Gaza with its armor and ground forces.

Over this past weekend, some 120 mortar shells, rockets and missiles were fired from Gaza at civilian targets in southern Israel. Israel's new Iron Dome defense system against short-range missiles and mortar rounds, which had been deployed only days earlier, intercepted almost a dozen missiles headed for the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod and Beersheva.

Notwithstanding the enormity of the provocation, Israel retaliated with pinpoint strikes against terrorist targets, killing two Hamas military commanders, Rayid Shehadeh and Tayser Abu Snima. Its attacks having proven futile and blunted, Hamas appealed for a truce on Israeli radio (see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/04/10/hamas-israel-palestinian-ceasefire.html).

This was not an appropriate time for another Israeli ground operation in Gaza. The Ba'athist regime in Syria is teetering as a result of broadening internal protest, and Assad would have welcomed the opportunity created by a war in Gaza by calling for pan-Arab unity in the face of the Zionist aggressor and instructing Hezbollah to fire at Israel from Lebanon.

Netanyahu, who has many detractors both inside and outside of Israel, demonstrated admirable restraint during this difficult period. Without delving into personalities or politics, I believe that Obama, who detests Netanyahu, could learn much from this example of leadership and decision making under fire.

"It's Witch-Hunt Season": Paul Krugman Begs for the Assistance of George Bush

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "It's Witch-Hunt Season" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/opinion/30krugman.html), Paul Krugman concludes:

"If I were President Obama, I’d be doing all I could to head off this prospect, offering some major new initiatives on the economic front in particular, if only to shake up the political dynamic. But my guess is that the president will continue to play it safe, all the way into catastrophe."

After railing against Limbaugh, Bush, the Koch brothers, Steve Schwarzman and everyone else under the sun, Krugman finally gets it right -- this presidency is a disaster of Obama's own making. The U.S. is not "still suffering the after-effects of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s," but rather still mired in the worst economic crisis since the 1930's.

There is a saying that originates in the Middle East:

"Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

Ordinarily, it wouldn't matter what Limbaugh said, but in this instance the caravan is stuck, and Krugman has little to say or do other than to denounce the voices of the right.

Krugman writes:

"Mr. Bush is still around, as are many of his former officials. Where are the statements, from the former president or those in his inner circle, preaching tolerance and denouncing anti-Islam hysteria?"

Sorry, Paul, but in case you didn't notice, the United States has a new president, whose job it is to lead.

[Interesting to observe how Krugman, joining fellow New York Times columnists Dowd and Herbert, has now soured on Obama.]

Official: Obama Worst President in U.S. History

Until yesterday, Obama was merely "in the running" for worst president in the history of the United States, competing with such erstwhile favorites as James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Millard Fillmore. Only a year and a half into his first term, Obama could field such notable accomplishments as:

• Failure to revive the U.S. economy;
• Escalation of the war in Afghanistan;
• Enactment of a health care plan opposed by a majority of Americans;
• Indifference to a major ecological disaster;
• Alienation of U.S. allies around the globe;
• Creation of a Middle East power vacuum threatening world peace;
• Repudiation of campaign promises, e.g., recognition of Armenian Genocide by the Turks;
• Estrangement of supporters, i.e. gays and Hispanics;
• Avoidance of news conferences and unscripted Q&A.

Had you asked me yesterday morning concerning Obama's chances to top the list of all-time worst American presidents, I would have told you that notwithstanding this impressive list of credentials, he is not even midway through his first, and presumably last, term of office, and a final determination must wait.

Yesterday evening, however, Obama placed himself at the top of the chart, when, at a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan, he used the occasion to declare his support for the construction of a 13-story, $100 million mosque and Muslim community center at Ground Zero.

Obviously, if this issue were to go the Supreme Court, there is nothing to prevent the erection of the complex, notwithstanding the fact that it amounts to a thumb in the eye for families of 9/11 victims. Moreover, New York Mayor Bloomberg has also already voiced support for the mosque, so why should Obama's advocacy for the project propel him to the top of the worst presidents list?

Answer: Still shackled with his inane decision to expand involvement in Afghanistan and desperately struggling to win the hearts and minds of its hostile civilian population, Obama could not have concluded otherwise. In addition, Obama continues to seek rapprochement with the Muslim world, and his declaration is entirely in keeping with his foreign affairs policy. But instead of making this pronouncement at a White House iftar dinner before a friendly group of Muslim invitees, Obama should have first sought to explain himself to the families of those who lost loved ones at the World Trade Center.

Cowardice on Obama's part? Stupidity? Certainly an absence of leadership, which has become the hallmark of his administration.

Pope Benedict, Leadership and Silence

Yesterday, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times took the position in her op-ed "A Nope for Pope" that Pope Benedict should go home to Bavaria for his silence regarding child molestation by priests. I agree with Dowd; however, I object to the "holier than thou" attitude of someone who remained silent in the face of depraved abuse, e.g., "honor killings", of Saudi women. Although Dowd is not the pope, she had the power, owing to her position at The Times, to make a difference. She also chose to remain silent.

Today, Ross Douthat of The New York Times , in an op-ed entitled "A Time for Contrition", pontificates on the issue of Benedict and child molestation from the other side of the spectrum. My online response, if The Times deigns to post it (The Times' "moderators", who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are anything but "moderate", refused to post my prior comment to Dowd's op-ed, but as is often said, miracles do happen):

Silence in the face of child molestation is not a matter for mere contrition. There is nothing more wicked and depraved than the sexual abuse of helpless children, and there should be no room for silence regarding this issue.

Also, in December Benedict approved a decree recognizing the "heroic virtues" of Pope Pius XII, moving Pius one step closer to sainthood. Notwithstanding the opposition of Catholic scholars from around the world who have implored Benedict to delay the sainthood of Pius, Benedict seems intent upon canonizing a pope who remained silent during the Holocaust.

Douthat writes "Popes do not resign." Not true: Pope Gregory XII resigned to end the Western Schism, and Pope Celestine V decreed it permissible for a pope to resign and did so.

Benedict, for the benefit of his flock, should call it quits.

Sorry, Ross, there is no room for contrition here. Contrition be damned! Leaders do not remain silent in the face of child abuse. Benedict must go.

Did You Take Leadership 101 at College?

My daughter will soon be "finishing" high school, and she has no desire to succeed with her course work. When I ask her why she is not studying for her exams, we inevitably engage in the following recurrent conversation:

"Why should I bother with math? I want to be a singer."

"Just because you want to be a singer, doesn't mean you can be a singer. There are another ten million just like you who want to be the next American Idol."

"You're old and disillusioned, Dad. If I try hard enough and believe, it's all going to happen."

This is where I explain to my daughter that I am still hoping to be a linebacker for my beloved Chicago Bears. I exercise regularly, can bench press a respectable amount of weight, and am waiting for my tryout with the team. Problems: no matter how hard I strive, I am becoming slower with each passing year, and I am probably 60 pounds too light for the position. My daughter says that I waited too long before attempting to fulfill my lifelong ambition, whereupon I respond that even in my youth, no matter how hard I might have tried, I would never have been big, strong or fast enough to play professional football. In short, I don't have the right genetic material to make this dream come true.

But what about playing the violin? Again, I am genetically deficient: inadequate small motor dexterity and an inability to carry a tune. Sure, if I wanted to go to the trouble, in another five years I might be able to provide a recital, including such favorites as "Happy Birthday" and "Frère Jacques", but my musical career would not extend beyond this unhappy cacophonous occasion.

But now back to the subject of this blog entry: Can "leadership" be learned, and if so, why is it not being taught at universities throughout the world?

My belief? 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.

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?

My daughter? Let's see if she ultimately decides to invest the time in voice lessons. Maybe someday she will take satisfaction from whatever level of proficiency she attains. And just maybe she will prove her father wrong and become a star of stage and screen. Meanwhile, however, I am still hoping she will take her math seriously, and I have composed a ditty on her behalf:

There once was a girl named Barr,

Who bought herself a guitar.

She thought she could play,

And sang all day,

But no one put money in the jar.