Finding true leaders can be very difficult, but everyone seems to have traits that they use when evaluating them: charisma, decisiveness, intelligence, etc. Whether you are talking about real of fictional people, these traits (and others) are frequently mentioned.
Of course, some traits are more valued than others. Some might feel intimidated by a fairly academic-minded or street-savy leader, so they may prefer someone who has more charisma than brains. Or maybe quick thinking is prefered over someone who's a charmer.
Nevertheless, what we don't like are posers: people who aren't leaders but try their darndest to convince you otherwise. When problems arise, they do everything but accept responsibility or offer solutions. Most of the time, they're more concerned about deflecting blame then factual debate. I call them Whitewashers.
As many of you have read here at DK and elsewhere, we have had an example of both
a Leader and
a Whitewasher. At first glance, it may be difficult to see a difference. But there
are differences. For example, Whitewashers tend to stick to the story that works for them (no matter how silly or outdated it is):
BLITZER: I'll read to you what Kofi Annan said on Monday. He said, "If current patterns of alienation and violence persist much further, there is a grave danger the Iraqi state will break down, possibly in the midst of a full-scale civil war." Is this what the American people bought in to?
BUSH: You know, it's interesting you quoted Kofi. I'd rather quote the people on the ground who are very close to the situation, and who live it day by day, our ambassador or General Casey. I ask this question all the time, tell me what it's like there, and this notion that we're in civil war is just not true, according to them. These are the people that live the issue.
Whitewashers never really answer the question; they prefer to discredit the person asking, or in this case, the person behind the question (Annan). Bush has no intention of making a personal statement here, where his word as Commander in Chief holds sway over the military; he'd rather lay all of the responsibility on Gen. Casey (who, despite not using the actual words, has pretty much said Iraq is in a civil war).
Now compare such a question with a Leader's response:
WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?
There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called "The Looming Tower." And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.
CLINTON: OK, let's just go through that.
WALLACE: Let me -- let me -- may I just finish the question, sir?
And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.
I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. ...
CLINTON: No, let's talk about it.
WALLACE: ... but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
CLINTON: OK, let's talk about it. Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.
I'm being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little "Pathway to 9/11," falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.
And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much -- same people.
They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in "Black Hawk down," and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.
OK, now let's look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Usama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93.
WALLACE: I understand, and I ...
CLINTON: No, wait. No, wait. Don't tell me this -- you asked me why didn't I do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul. All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day.
[snip]
CLINTON: But it would've shown the weakness if we'd left right away, but he wasn't involved in that. That's just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord, murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had no mission, none, to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out.
Leaders try to make sure that everyone's on the same page, whether discussing a project or implementing action. Clinton's first objective was to make sure the public knew that this question had nothing to do with why FoxNews called him for an interview. He did take a swipe at ABC, but maybe that's because they refused to give him an advanced copy of their "work" (I don't think Annan kept his comments about Iraq secret from Bush).
Now that could have been the end of it; Clinton could have just as well said, "Well you're gonna have to check with those fellas who were the Intelligence Leaders at the time" but he didn't. He didn't have to because he knew what was going on in his Administration. He trusted his staff, but he understood that at the end of the day, the blame (or praise) would be directed his way.
Some might say that Bush should be given more leeway because unlike Clinton, he's presiding during wartime. "The pressure's so much," they'd say; "You can't expect him to see things the way Clinton did then or even they way Clinton sees things now."
I'd counter that by saying that it's a good bet that Clinton's experiences make for a reasonable comparison, save one thing: Bush hasn't been humbled yet. Whether Bay of Pigs, or "Read My Lips" or MonicaGate, our previous POTUS have been taken down a peg. It's good for the soul and the country; the experience helps them understand that while they hold the Highest Office in the Land, they are still vulnerable to the pitfalls, vices and guffaws that the Everyman (and Everywoman) face.
Bush, as shocking as this may seem, hasn't gone through that yet. Or maybe he just has one hell of a poker face. Nevertheless, "humble" is not a trait many would associate with him, and for good reason: every national crisis or embarassment that has occurred on his watch has gotten the same cut-and-paste, "There, there" & 2-pats-on-the-back response. Abused prisoners, dead citzens, an ever-growing roster of KIAs? To Bush, it's "same salad, different dressing." But what else should we expect from a Whitewasher other than a one-size-fits-all response?
Looking back at the transcripts I think the most compelling contrast between these two men, the Leader and the Whitewasher, is how they have accepted their place in America's battle against terrorism. Clinton admits he didn't do enough, based solely on the fact that bin Laden is alive and free. Bush, on the other hand, has used this conflict as an excuse to resolve some personal conflicts (Saddam/Iraq/Oil) and practically ignore others (North Korea). Clinton would like to see more troops in Afganistan; Bush is convinced that Iraq (and soon Iran) are more important. Clinton's people saw threats before 9-11; Bush's people saw no threat until after 9-11, and now they see threats everywhere.
Sure, separately the stories are about a frustrated ex-President and the current, frightfully nonchalant one. But together, it gives a sense of where our standards for leadership have gone...and whether or not that's a good thing.