Comments on: President Barack Obama: Governing with Democrats

By: IrisDr

IrisDr — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:23:00 +0000

The criteria of experiences you describe as being necessary for predicting a successful President is mistaken just by looking at reality. You could be talking about W., and how about “President Perry?” Both have experience in the private sector and served in the military. Government is not a business. A CEO doesn’t have to deal with arcane rules of Congress. A President’s power is quite limited. By inference, I agree with Prof. Goldfarb that you appear to be suggesting that Obama is a weak leader. In fact, talented politicians, such as he, are very rare. He has been criticized for trying to work with the opposing party, though that was his promise. He’s offered those treasured cuts only to be rebuffed by intransigent simple-mindedness when it comes to raising one penny in revenue from those who could afford to give a little more. I believe that there are many who were shocked out of their doldrums once they saw a black family in the White House. There always are charges of socialism raised against any Democrat, but the hatred seemed to be more vehement in Obama’s case. Now we’re in another Presidential election year, and I can only hope that there still are a majority of people in this country who aren’t racist and can see through the stale solutions being offered by the Republicans. Heaven help us if we get the hypocrite Romney, who promises to rip health insurance out of people’s hands, and make sure his cronies’ millions aren’t touched, all while touting his private sector experience.

By: Michael Corey

Michael Corey — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:57:00 +0000

Jeff, I don’t thing that I said that President Obama was a weak leader. I think that I suggested that when he was elected, he was an inexperienced leader and manager. From my perspective, lack of leadership and managerial experience has consequences. It makes things much harder to get done. Most leaders and managers face difficult challenges throughout their careers, and the most successful ones find ways to pull people together. There have been and continue to be relatively few exemplar leaders and managers. I think that both skills sets must be learned and practiced. The best leaders and mangers learn from their mistakes as well as their successes. It can be frustrating at time, but it can be and has been done.

My first two paragraphs were about the Presidency, not a specific President. It applies to all candidates from all parties. In my view, generically we need better candidates. Exemplar leadership and management in the Presidency in my view has become more important than ever as government has become more complex, and as its reach has expanded. I think that now more than ever, candidates for President need a broad range of life experiences, and must have well-defined core values that are clearly communicated and drive the prioritization of what must be done, hopefully supported by solid analysis. Knowing where things are and why things have happened, are perquisites to weighing the alternatives, and choosing the best one.

Certainly, President Obama has had successes, but my sense is that he could have accomplished more had he applied situational leadership principles. My comments were directed towards process rather than content. I look forward to your future posts on accomplishments (and what your views on what you think needs to be done).

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:19:00 +0000

Michael, I disagree profoundly. I reject the premise that Obama has been a weak leader and that the problems he has had has anything to do with lack of leadership and managerial experience. He inherited a country in such bad shape economically and militarily, politically and culturally, with a rising tide of global anti Americanism. He has pursued reasonable policies and the policies have been reasonably successful. He might have gotten more in the face of Republican and Tea Party know nothingism, but not much. You would have liked him to work more effectively as a centrist. Many of our colleagues and readers think he should have been more steadfast in his liberal commitments. But all things considered, deliberately, I think you pose the problem in a mistaken way. The problem is how he has been so successful, not why he has failed.

First, I note in this post that he accomplished a great deal working with the Democratic Congress. Next I will show how much he accomplished both with and against the Republicans. Those posts are coming soon. And I am sure we will continue our conversation.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:19:00 +0000

By: Michael Corey

Michael Corey — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:00:00 +0000

The Presidency of the United States is by definition a unique position. In my view, a President must have core strong values which he must be able to communicate clearly and effectively. These values must be complemented by equally strong leadership and managerial skills and experience. It is very difficult to develop these skills while in office due to the demands of the Presidency and the reluctance of others to mentor the President. I think that successful experiences in both the public and private sectors are extremely important. For me, it also makes sense for the Commander and Chief to have some kind of leadership experiences in the military. It also helps to be inspirational, but that is rare.

Someone with these types of successful experiences has a much better chance of being proficient and confident. An experienced leader/manager has a much better chance of pulling people together and achieving best case outcomes. Without an experience base to draw upon, problem solving becomes much more difficult. Experience and confidence goes hand in hand. This combination of core values, leadership and management experience helps in negotiating difficult issues and situations without alienating large numbers of people. Sometimes confrontational negotiations are unavoidable. These may win the momentary outcome, but rarely resolve long term issues. Interest based negotiating tends to achieve better long term results. Most successful negotiators have significant experience. The other side must never be underestimated or disrespected.

President Obama has been put in a position where he has had to address extremely difficult problems without having the types of leadership, managerial and negotiating experiences noted above. In my view, this has contributed to the mixed results of his administration thus far. During his campaign, his goal was to unite the nation, and thus far, he has not been able to do this.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:43:00 +0000

In this post and the next two on Obama I will focus on the political economy, economic and social policy, what I think is at the center of the American electorate’s concerns. But I will write about issues of American identity and conduct of security and human rights policy later. But I should be clear, I am deeply disappointed by the way Obama is not fundamentally changing American security and human rights policies as first developed by Bush and company. He should be pressured to change course. But this won’t be the result of the elections. If anything, things will get much worse under the Republicans.

In the first phase of the Obama presidency when he had a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, he was constrained by conservative Democrats, especially in the Senate. I am not sure he could have gotten more. I think that a great deal was accomplished.

I think in the next phase, which I will write about more next week, Obama’s negotiating skills were tested and that it is possible that he could have accomplished more by being tougher. I agree with Lisa, that this may have been a consequence of character, generally admirable, but perhaps not ideal for this circumstance.

But I also think that Obama has a sharp strategic long view and that this should be remembered as we evaluate his tactics. Right now, with the support of a social movement pushing him and Washington more generally to the left, he has the initiative. Even with all the attention the Republicans get from their primary campaign, his issues are now at the center of the public’s attention. Coincidence or strategy?

By: Lisa

Lisa — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:34:00 +0000

Interesting. Just a few comments. The fraught relationship between liberals and Obama should be there. The discussion that ensues and the questions that get asked as a result of this tension— for example, is it alright to kill an American citizen without a trial (or ever?) are important. Maybe they are for the more esoteric among us, but they are deep and meaningful questions and debates. As we have discussed, Obama is/was and always will be a thoughtful and principled pragmatist. I have started to think of him in narrative terms, as a character, so that I can better understand him. At first, he gave way too much. Period. He achieved things, sure. And those things needed to be represented by the media (even our slow economic growth was/is still growth)— but the right pulled him right. It was maddening. We knew he was smarter than that—- my only explanation: he really believes people are better than they are. He has always talked about the group being better than the individual, working together, etc (he starts to sound religious when he gets into his beliefs about community). I would never say he was naive — wrong word. Then he seemed to let in the reality that most Republicans would do whatever it took to stop him— they hate him (yes, these are what Freud called passionate attachments). He never rose to the bait (again, why— in part his character, in part the long history for black men and leaders to REFUSE to be provoked), and he started to fight back. But he is measured by nature—- and he uses his mind to fight. Now I think we see him rolling up his sleeves and I do believe he is fighting for a second term so he can do good things and continue to get the country back on its’ feet. He has a shot — not just because he has turned on the charm, but also because the other side has so many dopes.