A brief consideration of Presidential leadership and President Obama seems appropriate at this point in the election. Donald Trump says that President Obama is not a “leader”, while Vladimir Putin is. Mr. Trump’s concept of leadership is likely based on his perception of business leaders, which seems to be that “leaders” issue orders to their minions who then execute those orders or are “fired”. Mr. Putin probably looks like that sort of leader to Mr. Trump, and thus he feels some connection with him. No doubt Mr. Trump believes that he and Mr. Putin understand “power” and act like powerful men. President Obama does not act like Mr. Putin and is, therefore, not a leader.
Of course, this concept of leadership does not fit with that found in the numerous books on leadership which are available in this country alone. Even in the business world, this view of how to run a large organization does not pass for leadership. Virtually all CEO’s of big companies know that they cannot just issue orders and expect them to be followed through layer upon layer of employees. Success for a business, or any organization for that matter, requires that most employees, to a fair extent, buy into the organization’s goals and strategies.
Democracy in the United States adds layers of complexity to Presidential leadership because Presidents must deal with two other branches of government, a semi-independent bureaucracy, an organized opposition political party and numerous interest groups with various goals and demands. The cliché of herding cats comes quickly to mind. Mr. Putin has much less democracy to deal with and a much greater ability to control the media and intimidate his opponents than the President of the US has. Also, given their history, many Russians have less attachment to democratic processes and ideals and more belief in the need for a “strong” leader. Many Russians still say that while Stalin did a lot of bad things, at least he was a strong leader. If Mr. Trump thinks a US President can imitate Mr. Putin, he has seriously misjudged the country’s political structure and attitudes, starting with the fact that the US Constitution is designed to limit the ability of anyone in the government to get things done quickly or easily.
The complexities of Presidential leadership are summed up by Richard Neustadt in his book The Power Of The Presidency in which he argues that “The power of the Presidency is the power to persuade.” Theodore Roosevelt put it more simply by describing the Presidency as a “bully pulpit”. Both men recognized that the President has a limited ability to give “orders” and instead has to convince people to embrace his or her idea of what needs to be done in a particular situation in order to have a good chance of controlling the public policy outcome. Harry Truman made this point about Dwight Eisenhower, although he misunderstood Eisenhower’s experience as a senior general in World War II (including Field Marshall Montgomery’s repeated refusal to attack when ordered to do so during the Battle of the Budge), when he said, “He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating.”
Defining what leadership is in any given situation is always a difficult project because it usually has several aspects. But Presidential leadership clearly involves more than just being the “Bureaucrat-In-Chief” and counting up the passage of bills or adoption of regulations as achievements. One can help pass a lot of useful legislation, while the country drifts in unhealthy directions. The President has an obligation to try to bring about something like a consensus among our citizens as to what problems face the nation, what caused them and how to deal with them. He or she need not do this all alone. Presidents have often orchestrated help in highlighting issues from Cabinet members, Congressional leaders, and experts from inside and outside the government. But the President must lead the way.
Creating public support for policies is important for two reasons. First, a democratic society must have a level of agreement about key ideals and issues or it cannot hold together. Second, setting the public agenda and trying to create public support for it makes it easier to achieve that agenda and provides a good explanation if compromise legislation does not achieve complete success once passed. Here are four major issues where President Obama could have shown better Presidential leadership by putting his office’s “power to persuade” and the “bully pulpit” to good use.
The Great Recession. President Obama took office in the midst of the biggest economic crisis since the Depression. The report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission provided the perfect opportunity for President Obama to attempt to create a consensus about what caused the problem, and what legislative and regulatory actions would prevent it from happening again. Perhaps he would have failed, but by not trying, he allowed the causes of the crisis to remain a mystery to too many people.
Economic Stimulus. Since the Depression, economists have done a lot of analysis of what worked and what didn’t work in restoring prosperity during that crisis. In general, financial stimulus worked and fiscal austerity failed, as illustrated by the recession caused in 1937 by the temporary ending of economic stimulus. Further, by 2009 several economists had calculated how big an economic stimulus was needed to pull the economy out of the Recession. President Obama could have tried to educate the public on all of this and demand that Congress pass an adequately sized stimulus package. Instead he just negotiated a stimulus package with Congress which was inadequate. If he had advocated for the correct size of the stimulus, President Obama would still have had to accept what Congress gave him, but he would have had a ready answer to the question of why the stimulus bill he signed didn’t completely solve the problem.
Climate Change. Global warning threatens all Americans, but many Americans seem to have doubts about its existence or causes. President Obama has tried to deal with global warming on his own without attempting to create public pressure for action, which might have made getting legislative action easier. The temperature records show that the world has been getting warmer since about 1816, and the causes are not complex science. The President and his surrogates could have presented the charts and the explanations to the public and at least tried to dispel the science versus belief dichotomy.
Economic Inequality. The massive economic inequality in the country is the issue that most threatens the stability of the country. Obviously, a democratic country cannot continue indefinitely with 1% of the population getting richer and richer decade after decade, while the 99% gets poorer. Even if he did not want to propose solutions to the problem, for whatever reason, President Obama could have initiated a discussion of the existence of problem, while explaining the ineffectiveness of “supply side economics” and why the rich are not “job creators”. Failing to do so not only let the problem fester, but opened the door to Trump-like invented explanations and solutions.
Hopefully, President Obama’s successor will be more willing to provide better leadership on key issues.