Obama: Mediator? Somewhat; Leader? Please Tell Me Where and When
In Harvard Law School, Barack Obama was President of the Harvard
Law Review and was sort of the "old man" among his fellow
students there.
Most of his fellow students at the Harvard Law Review were a few
years younger than he was. Often he felt that disputes between
opposing parties were childish. He had considerable skill in
getting opposing parties together by facilitating them to split
their differences; that is, by facilitating compromises. He was
an effective mediator at the Harvard Law Review.
As president, however, I wonder how effective Obama would be as a
mediator. As a U. S. president, Obama would not be the "old man"
mediator as he was on the Harvard Law Review who helped in
settling "childish" disputes.
Moreover, what do we really know about the length and depth of
Obama's skills at mediation? I know that there are intensive
short-term mediator training programs. There are longer-term
mediator certificate programs. There are mediation certification
programs. There are organizations and associations for
professional mediators. I wonder whether Obama has any formal
training or certified competency in mediation? If he has, I
can't recall having heard or read about it. From my
recollection, there is no mention of training in mediation in
www.barackobama.com, in Obama's book "Dreams from My Father"
which he wrote at the age of 34 years, or in the Wikipedia.com
article for Barack Obama.
Besides, is what the United States is looking for in a president,
an effective mediator? Or, is what the United States is looking
for in a president, an effective leader? In my experience, a
potential president tries to demonstrate a record of leadership,
not of mediatorship. A commander, such as a commander-in-chief,
is expected to be a leader. A commander-in-chief is not a
mediator-in-chief.
Is there really a difference between a mediator and a leader?
In essence, a mediator seeks ways to facilitate compromise
between opposing parties, between opposing leaders, if you will.
He seeks each opposing side to understand the opposite side; that
is good. Understanding is always good. Still, a mediator seeks
to have opposing parties to split differences between themselves.
The values of the opposing parties are not the most important
issues. What is most important is reaching the compromise.
In contrast, a leader seeks to advance particular positions.
Compromise may be necessary, but compromise is not the main goal
of a leader, as it is of a mediator. A leader seeks to persuade
an opposing party as to the merits of his/her positions.
Sometimes the positions of the opposing party do not merit
compromise, at least not significant compromise. The leader
seeks an optimum solution, one that is as close to the leader's
position as possible.
The mediator seeks opposing parties to reach a middle ground so
that both sides will accept an agreed to compromise.
A leader is an advocate. A mediator is a neutral party. A
leader seeks to pull movement in a clear direction, in his/her
direction. A mediator seeks to have opposing leaders move in
opposite, but converging directions, towards each other.
A leader on the political left seeks to pull the political right
towards the political left. A leader on the political right
seeks to pull the political left towards the political right.
In contrast, a mediator seeks to facilitate the political left to
move towards the political right and, at the same time, seeks to
facilitate the political right to move towards the political left
-- always seeking the middle ground, whatever the opposing values
and issues are.
Prior to the U. S. Civil War, some states had retained slavery,
and some states had abolished slavery. Also, prior to the Civil
War, compromises had been reached about whether slavery would or
would not be expanded into new states that would join the United
States.
After the Civil War, by the Thirteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, all slavery was abolished.
Imagine if further compromises had been sought to avoid any war
where slavery would have been an issue.
A mediator would have sought to facilitate the parties to
compromise. Here are some possible compromises:
(1) perhaps abolish slavery in some states and retain slavery in
other states;
(2) perhaps abolish slavery for men, but retain slavery for
women;
(3) perhaps abolish slavery for adults, but retain slavery for
children; or
(4) perhaps keep all current slaves in slavery, but exclude
slavery for future births.
Of course, none of such possible compromises would have been
satisfactory. Mediation would have been out of place. Mediation
simply would not have worked.
A leader is an executive. The president is the chief executiive.
A mediator is more like a judge, who in litigation, often
encourages "settlements" which are compromises.
What do we want in a president? Leadership or mediatorship? A
commander-in-chief or a mediator-in-chief?