You Don't Bend to The Opinion Polls, Yet You Call Yourself a Leader?

If Michael Gerson were an honest man, he would admit that his former colleague, David Frum, made a valid point when he argued that the Republican Party would have benefited from making itself a part of healthcare reform rather than positioning itself as an obstacle. The Republican Party's continuing avalanche of misinformation about the Affordable Care Act is a sight to behold - as was the manner in which a contrived "activity vs. inactivity" distinction was puffed up over the course of two short years into a legal theory that almost defeated the legislation. Having lost first at the legislature and then in the courts, what's a hack like Gerson to do but double down on his party's mendacity.

Gerson was, of course, an important cog in the wheel of the Bush Administration's misinformation machine. The machine for which popular opinion was a meaningless distraction. The public is starting to oppose war with Iraq? "Well then, let's get the invasion underway - the public always comes around when the bombs start dropping." The public opposes privatizing Social Security? "Well then, let's find a different word to use. How does 'private accounts' sound?" The public wants to know who met with Dick Cheney when he was forming the Administration's energy policy? "Well, it's tempting to scoff or laugh, but let's stick with stonewalling for now."

But when it's the other guy in office, Michael Gerson is suddenly all for government by plebiscite. Gerson can't even be honest about public sentiment. He whines about the Affordable Care Act, "Change came in the form of a law that a plurality of Americans opposed", but he knows full well that the opposition was in no small part a result of Republican demagoguery and misinformation. He wasn't the worst of the bunch, but he played an eager and happy role in that misinformation campaign.

He knew then, just as he knows now, that the only significant part of "Obamacare" that polled poorly was the individual mandate - that pretty much every other significant reform element, when people understood what they were asked about, received majority support. He focuses on the bill as a whole because it advances his narrative - the lie he and his party keep telling the nation, not because they believe that the public doesn't like "Obamacare" but because they're terrified that it will succeed.

Yes, that's right, they're terrified of its success. If they believed a tenth of their demagoguery, they would allow the ACA to come into full effect and let people see for themselves how bad it is. It's easy to repeal unpopular laws. They live in abject terror of a popular, successful reform that brings insurance to tens of millions of people who are presently uninsured or underinsured. So their effort has been to keep that from happening - and to tell as many lies as necessary to provoke public suspicion, concern and opposition.

Gerson has good company in today's Republican Party, because his position is essentially that of a coward. If you're trying to advance what you believe to be good policy, or at least the best policy you can implement given political reality, and run into a political headwind, you should abandon ship, run for the hills, scurry off the sinking ship like a terrified rat. Perhaps that's how he perceives his ex-boss's abandonment of immigration reform and Social Security reform, or McCain's abandonment of immigration reform, campaign finance reform, cap and trade.... The ultimate politician is a Mitt Romney, a guy with no core beliefs, a guy who's always chasing the latest poll, a guy who will discard his most significant (and arguably only) significant political achievement in the name of winning an election. I would like to say that nobody in their right mind would confuse Gerson's brand of cowardice with leadership but... while you can't fool all of the people all of the time, Gerson and friends are happy to shoot for 51%.

Listen to Gerson's platitudinous nonsense:

Obamacare matters in the current election not only because its future is at stake but for what its passage tells us about Obama as a leader. He is stubborn, which can be an admirable trait when applied to the public interest. But on health-care reform, Obama combined stubbornness with ideological predictability and partisan ruthlessness — imposing a very conventional liberalism in the Chicago way.

Obama is "stubborn" - a good thing if it means advancing Gerson's political agenda, really that of his party, but a terrible thing if it means advancing any other agenda. To pass legislation with a significant majority in the House, a 60 vote majority in the Senate, and then to reconcile minor differences in the bill based upon majority support in the Senate? That's anti-democratic. Not at all like the Bush-era tax cuts that shot our deficits through the roof and create a lingering hangover for our nation, crammed through the Senate by reconciliation in Bush's first term based upon a series of patently false promises. Who was heading up the team tasked with spinning that sow's ear into a silk purse? Oh, yeah....

For goodness sake, "the Chicago way"? Can't Gerson try to be even a little bit creative, to try to disguise his silly and childish attacks as something other than warmed over Republican demagoguery? Is he unable to conjure up a novel turn of phrase without the help of David Frum? To find fresh poison to inject into the public discourse without the help of Marc Thiessen? (Lord, what a dream team that was.)

Gerson continues to whine that Obama failed to broker a "grand budget compromise in 2011", a failure attributed to his demand that a significant part of the balancing of the budget come in the form of tax increases, then goes on to whine about forthcoming "large issues" - "avoiding the fiscal cliff, reforming the tax code, making entitlement commitments more sustainable". Never mind that the "fiscal cliff" is of little concern to anybody but pundits and demagogues - here in the real world we know that Congress will act to prevent that "cliff" from having any meaningful impact on the economy or defense spending. Never mind that Obama's "grand bargain" proposals included significant entitlement reform, and that the very legislation Gerson rails about, "Obamacare", implements cost-saving reforms - and that it has been Gerson's own Republican Party that has demagogued against the Medicare cuts that are part of that legislation. Never mind that "reforming the tax code" is a meaningless phrase - you may as well whimper that the President hasn't spent enough time reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Gerson closes by suggesting that if Obama doesn't "become an entirely different type of leader", by which he apparently means a spineless Republican, we should conclude that "America needs a new one". I guess it's fortunate for Gerson that a man who shares his complete lack of integrity, and endorses Gerson's apparent notion that "presidential leadership" is best demonstrated by following the latest opinion poll, is presently the Republican presidential nominee.

Promising the Moon then Passing the Hard Work to Congress Isn't Leadership

A central theme of the Romney/Ryan campaign is that they don't have to be specific about the more difficult aspects of their otherwise pie-in-the-sky plans because they're simply going to delegate the task to Congress.

"Here's our specific proposal for a $4 - $5 trillion tax cut, inuring largely to the benefit of the wealthy. Now it's your job, Congress, to find the loopholes to close and deductions to eliminate to make our plan revenue-neutral.

I have forgotten. Which branch of government controls the purse strings again? Which branch of government is infamous for its pork and earmarks, for not wanting to cut anything that might alienate a constituent or wealthy donor? Which branch of government has two-faced "budget experts" who publicly decry stimulus spending while privately pleading for stimulus dollars to be sent to their districts? Which branch of government delegates its difficult budgetary tasks to committees and forces "up or down" votes on committee reports, because that allows its members to avoid taking personal responsibility for any resulting pain? (Give me a "C", give me an "O", give me a "N"....)

This would be the same Congress that created those deductions and loopholes? This would be the same Congress that passed, with "budget expert" Paul Ryan's support, authorization for two unfunded wars and the massive unfunded entitlement expansion, Medicare Part D? This would be the same Congress that has passed each and every budget that has added to our national debt? When he's not campaigning, and professing deep regret for his career of deficit-expanding votes, Paul Ryan is very much part of the problem.

If Romney and Ryan believe what they're saying, they're fools. But you know what? They're not fools. They're hoping that the rest of us are fools, and that a pliant media continues to go along with their game.

To be leaders in this context, Romney and Ryan don't have to take a "my way or the highway" approach. They simply need to put together a credible proposal and say, "If Congress can improve on this, that would be great, but as you can see this really can work." You know what else? If they're deferring to Congress, with Paul Ryan being the GOP's "budget expert" in Congress, Ryan should be able to speak for the House majority right now. If this proposal were to come before the Republican majority in the house, what would Ryan endorse right now? It's a fair question, and one a leader would not be afraid to answer.

Were they honest, they would admit that they're not willing to risk their political futures by telling the truth - that even if we assume there are enough loopholes and deductions to close, there is simply no way that Congress is going to take responsibility for inflicting that kind of pain. If they were courageous they would stand behind their convictions and state exactly what their plan entails, accepting the political consequences. Were they leaders they would produce an actual plan and present it to Congress and the nation. But alas, they're none of the above, so they pretend that its enough to pass the buck to Congress, knowing full well that Congress will demur.

If Only President Obama Were... A Coward?

Have I hinted that I'm not fond of this type of thinking?

This is the original sin of the Obama Administration — the failure to make the economic recovery its one and only priority. Why couldn’t the administration have proposed that until unemployment had fallen for 12 straight months or until it had created 8 million new jobs, it would only propose initiatives that served the goal of job growth? Instead, the president immediately embarked on comprehensive health-care reform, the same reef that had battered and almost sunk Bill Clinton.

Problem #1: The notion that government can only do one thing at a time, and it needs to steer away from anything difficult. There is no reason why a President cannot focus on two, three, four... even dozens of major issues. There are enough days in the week and year.

Problem #2: Magical thinking. What does Eskew imagine would have been changed by the President's saying, "Despite all of my promises during the campaign I'm going to drop healthcare reform until... whenever, maybe never... while I pull a John McCain and pretend that I have magic control over the economy." What more does Eskew imagine that Congress would have approved, above and beyond the stimulus bill that passed? By what magic trick would the Republicans have stopped obstructing job creation initiatives coming out of the White House, or demagoguing about how the President made the recovery his priority over all else and failed?

Problem #3: Leadership is actually a good thing. Whatever benefit Eskew sees in the notion of running away from the nation's hard, pressing problems, a philosophy of "Somebody tried to fix this twenty years ago and suffered political harm, so we should never again try" is outright craven.

Certainly the President underestimated his own party, and its willingness to be either efficient or put aside self-interest when it came to resisting lobbyists and crafting good policy. Certainly he underestimated Republican obstructionism, despite Mitch McConnell's statement that he would put Obama's defeat above all other priorities, making clear through his actions that his lower priorities included the welfare of the nation. But to put on your 20:20 hindsight goggles and complain, "I knew all along that the President should be a coward, but he stuck his neck out trying to accomplish something so don't go expecting me to criticize the guy swinging the axe"... just what sort of country, what sort of democracy do you want us to have?

Leadership vs. Leadership Styles

When I saw a Republican "analyst" on Real Time announce that President Obama is "not a leader", I couldn't help but roll my eyes. It seems like only yesterday that Republican "analysts" were lamenting that President Obama has pushed all sorts of reforms on the nation too quickly, and had transformed our nation into some form of Kenyan socialist dystopia. With the release of a new party memo, that all gets flushed down the memory hole.

Obama's style of leadership is a fair subject for comment and criticism. I think it is fair to say the following:

1. President Obama likes compromise solutions, and likes to achieve his compromise deals behind-the-scenes. That may not be an unreasonable approach to take in these hyperpartisan times, when even the most modest suggestion (e.g., eliminating a generous tax break for luxury corporate jets) results in a Republican "leader" and negotiator throwing a tantrum and storming away from the negotiating table. But it's a form of leadership that is largely invisible to the public and, when visible, is a bit unseemly - as if there's no firm line, and that there's nothing that cannot be negotiated away for the sake of the deal.

2. President Obama does not take strong stands in favor of policies that he does not believe will be passed by Congress. This is not unreasonable, given that the Democrats in Congress have repeatedly gone out of their way to hamstring the President's agenda or to extort ridiculous concessions to support him. Also, taking a strong public stance in favor of an agenda that you cannot pass can make you look weak and cripple your ability to advance other items on your agenda. What did Bush accomplish after leading his party to failure on Social Security privatization?

3. President Obama rarely uses his access to the media to attempt to shape the public debate, and when he does take a public stand it is usually very late in the game when he's simply trying to round up the last few votes. I understand the argument that the belief that even the President can reshape public opinion is an embrace of mythology, and I also understand how the modern media will often take a clear statement and use it (or allow partisan 'guests' to use it) to cloud the debate while "objectively" failing to state the facts, but I do think that the President could do a much better job explaining both his agenda and the necessity of some of the compromises he makes.

Despite the fumbles and compromises, I am having a difficult time thinking of a President who, in my lifetime, accomplished more in his first year than Obama. If we are to think of G.W. as a "leader", let's recall that he spent his first 100 days arguing that it was unfair to expect a President to accomplish anything in his first 100 days, and was doing little more than running his approval rating into the ground before he scored his "trifecta". How much credit should I give him for ramming through tax cuts for the rich via reconciliation? If you can't get sixty U.S. Senators to vote for tax cuts for the rich, you're probably doing something wrong.

As is his wont, David Brooks is advancing the Republican line in more measured tones. He initially suggests that it is a mistake for a President to "live up to th[e] grandiose image" defined by John F. Kennedy in an "Inaugural Address that did enormous damage to the country". Brooks lectures, that Kennedy's "speech gave a generation an unrealistic, immature vision of the power of the presidency." He then pays Obama a back-handed compliment, that he has "renounced that approach" and "Far from being a heroic quasi Napoleon who runs the country from the Oval Office, Obama has been a delegator and a convener". Putting in the hat of the rank amateur armchair psychoanalyst, Brooks potificates,

All his life, Obama has worked in nonhierarchical institutions — community groups, universities, legislatures — so maybe it is natural that he has a nonhierarchical style. He tends to see issues from several vantage points at once, so maybe it is natural that he favors a process that involves negotiating and fudging between different points of view.

Still, I would never have predicted he would be this sort of leader. I thought he would get into trouble via excessive self-confidence. Obama’s actual governing style emphasizes delegation and occasional passivity. Being led by Barack Obama is like being trumpeted into battle by Miles Davis. He makes you want to sit down and discern.

You might think that, in light of his comments about Kennedy and his scorn for Presidents who tend toward grandiosity, Brooks would see that as a good thing. But when it comes to this type of column, Brooks has never been one to strive for internal consistency. Brooks expresses,

But this is who Obama is, and he’s not going to change, no matter how many liberals plead for him to start acting like Howard Dean.

When the Democrats had the opportunity to pick a leader who acted like Howard Dean, and by that I mean the opportunity to nominate Howard Dean, they picked Al Gore. I'm not sure what Brooks would take as a repudiation of his notion that the Democratic Party is yearning for somebody who acts like Howard Dean, but you might think that would be sufficient.

Brooks echoes some familiar complaints about the President:

He has not educated the country about the debt challenge. He has not laid out a plan, aside from one vague, hyperpoliticized speech. He has ceded the initiative to the Republicans, who have dominated the debate by establishing facts on the ground.

Here I have some sympathy for those who argue that the President has little ability to shape the debate. Any number of prominent Republicans have made statements about the national debt and deficit that range from misleading to outright false. They have muddied up the debate on the debt ceiling, something that is already confusing to many Americans, such that almost two thirds of Americans believe that raising the debt ceiling involves new spending. And the media, including David Brooks, has been content to let that happen. What happens when the President attempts to push back? David Brooks takes time out from whining that the President has not been pushing back to whine that the President is "hyperpartisan". There are hyperpartisans in the picture and they, like Brooks, are intent upon finding fault with everything the President does, even when it's exactly what they've asked. Take it from Brooks:

If [Obama] can overcome his aloofness and work intimately with Republicans, he may be able to avert a catastrophe and establish a model for a more realistic, collegial presidency.

Which, as we've already discussed, involves working things out in back room deals, or perhaps on the golf course with John Boehner, which is what the President is already doing.

In pretty much the same category as Brooks, we have David Frum - the man who was crying bitter tears that Republican obstructionism over healthcare reform was the party's Waterloo, until Joe Lieberman saved the day for the Republicans by insisting that Medicare expansion be removed from the final bill. Back then, he was among those crying that the President was changing too much too quickly. Now? He wants to erase that history, and reinvent Obama as a wimp:

Yet Brooks has laid out the most useful and effective critique of Barack Obama for Republicans in 2012: The job has overwhelmed the man. He’s not an alien, he’s not a radical. He’s just not the person the country needs. He’s not tough enough, he’s not imaginative enough, and he’s not determined enough.

Frum argues with some validity that the President has not put enough weight behind some of his nominations, but his criticism reflects either a lack of knowledge of U.S. history and Senate rules, or a deliberate effort to mislead his readers into believing that the only thing that has changed since FDR threatened to stack the Supreme Court is the name of the man in the White House. Frum states, again with some validity,

With unemployment at 10% and interest rates at 1%, the president got persuaded that it was debt and interest that trumped growth and jobs as Public Issue #1.

I think the picture is more complicated than Frum suggests, in that although Obama clearly underestimated what it would take to bring about a strong economic recovery, assuming the federal government had the capacity to do so, he pushed through about as strong a stimulus bill as he could muster and assumed that we would have a V-shaped recovery. Yes, between the Blue Dog faction of his own party, Republican demagoguery, and a complacent media, we are dealing with a government that's intent on cutting spending when we arguably would fare much better with another enormous stimulus bill. But I'll note that, even in criticizing the President for not getting behind such a bill, Frum conspicuously avoids admitting that to be the policy he's endorsing. Well, sort-of endorsing, because I'm pretty sure that if the President were to do as Frum suggests, Frum would instead be criticizing the President for falling back on a failed idea.

Frum's historic revisionism continues,

Back in 2008, Obama made two big promises: a tax cut for everybody earning less than $250,000 and an Afghan surge. I think it’s safe to say that Obama believed in neither of them. I’d argue that neither was important to electing him. Both were adopted for defensive reasons, to shield himself from conservative critique. In the very different circumstances of 2009, both promises rapidly showed themselves to be counter-productive. The “tax cut” promise caused Obama to direct almost one-third of his big stimulus into an individual tax rebate that no economist would have regarded as effective, for reasons explained by Milton Friedman more than 40 years ago. The Afghan surge promise was regretted by Obama himself as soon as he came into office, and he spent 9 months looking for ways to evade it.

The evidence that President Obama didn't believe that a middle class tax cut would be a good idea is what, David? Nothing? And the evidence that President Obama didn't believe in a surge in Afghanistan is that it took nine months for him to implement the surge, he's stood squarely behind it for going on two years, and based upon similar principles of humanitarian intervention recently involved the U.S. in a similar venture in Libya? Who are you going to believe, David Frum or your lying eyes.

If we were to look for the truth, we might observe that the tax cut portion of the stimulus bill was included as part of an effort to gain Republican votes. In retrospect, that was a mistake, but at the time it didn't seem obvious that the Republican Party would work so overtly to harm the nation's recovery in order to advance themselves politically, or that such an approach would work. As the 2010 elections demonstrate, it did work, and the Republicans have, if anything, since doubled down on their tactics. It's "wimpy" for the President to propose that tax cuts could help an economic recovery, to express concern about the size of the deficit and national debt, and to engage in a surge and now a slow withdrawal from Afghanistan? Then few of the Republican contenders can be described as anything but uber-wimps.

Character Flaws of the Rich and Powerful

In an odd column about The Social Network, simultaneously emphasizing that it is a fictionalized account of Mark Zuckerberg's rise and treating it as if it's fact, David Brooks laments,

The Zuckerberg character is without social and moral skills. It’s not that he’s a bad person. He’s just never been house-trained. He’s been raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct. The character becomes a global business star without getting a first-grade education in interaction.

and concludes,

Many critics have compared this picture to “Citizen Kane.” But I was reminded of the famous last scene in “The Searchers,” in which the John Wayne character is unable to join the social bliss he has created. The character gaps that propel some people to do something remarkable can’t be overcome simply because they have managed to change the world.

It seems worth noting that the psychological factors that Brooks ascribes to not being "house trained" as a result of being "raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct" should evoke in his mind something a bit more contemporary than a John Wayne movie. It's interesting that he rejects, without any real analysis, the comparison to Citizen Kane, a fictionalized account of William Randolph Hearst. Who was more ruthless, "Caine" or Zuckerman as depicted in the movie? Who was more vengeful, less moral, more selfish? Were "Caine's" character flaws a manifestation of his being "raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct"?

The fact is, darn few people claw their way to the top of the economic pyramid while playing the part of the socially conscious gentleman. The novelty in the rise of somebody like (movie) Zuckerberg is not so much that he's ruthless with his friends and enemies alike, but that (as Brooks points out) he's a "nerd" - somebody who wouldn't have been able to penetrate the class system that Brooks assures us no longer exists at Harvard. Yes, the information age has allowed a huge number of "nerds", including many with weak social skills", to become wealthy and lead companies. Historically many of those same people would have been stuck working for somebody else. But let's not pretend that the history of capitalism stands as a monument to moral, ethical, well-socialized businessmen.

I sometimes come across platitudinous assertions about the wealthy and powerful, such as "Great men have great appetites" or "Great men have great faults." The fact is, every human being has faults, and most of us have pretty significant faults. Appetites? The same thing - I doubt that there's a person on the planet who hasn't, at some point in time, wanted or felt driven to do something that was wrong or immoral - but when you're wealthy you can either find "legal" ways to exercise your desires, or use your wealth to insulate yourself from consequence. Think of Rupert Murdoch and the way he looted his companies for personal gain - he is indignant at his prosecution because, in effect, he "stole the money, fair and square". He and his lawyers found a way to loot the companies that they believed to be legal. Take a look at Elliot Spitzer and his prostitutes, or Tiger Woods and his affairs. Their wealth brought them opportunities (or is it temptations) that most people don't get, and they made choices based upon their own character. On one level, most certainly, it's easier to avoid crossing a moral line if you don't face temptation. But on another level there's nothing special about them that compelled them to surrender to temptation. It's still a matter of personal choice - what type of person do you want to be?

I think you will find that, among people who manage to climb to the top of the economic pyramid, there's a tendency to put concerns about others - their wishes, feelings, needs, whatever - to the background. There is often a single-mindedness to their push to the top. In some cases that's highly contextual, with the driven individual simply not allowing others to stand between him and his goal. With others it branches out into all areas of his life. That has a lot less to do with being "raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct" and a lot more to do with their childhood experiences and their personality. How many generations of wealthy people would have told you that their station was a manifestation of the will of God, and would happily explain why their actions were morally proper if not dictated by their faith?

I don't want to sound like Brooks, and oversimplify the wealthy into two classes of individual. But I do think it's fair to observe that the tendency to run roughshod over others within the context of business does roughly break down into two varieties: those who simply don't care, and those who recognize what they are doing and seek forgiveness after-the-fact - adherents to the principle that it's easier to get forgiveness than to get permission. (If you succeed, odds are you'll get that permission. And if you successes significantly outweigh your failures, you'll probably still get forgiven.) Forging ahead when others around you are urging caution can be reasonably described as leadership. But, as one would hope that movie Zuckerman learned by the end of the screenplay, you don't have to be an ass to be a leader.

Lead, Follow or... Get In The Way?

Evan Bayh demonstrating that he's not so much part of the solution as he is part of the problem. In short, he's obstructing reforms of student loans that will bring about cost savings and efficiencies by having the government directly provide student loans, out of concern that doing something that's good for the country will affect the financial services that profiteer off of the status quo... and did you notice that Sallie Mae is a major employer in his state.

This story has been covered in many locations; I'm just following up on my "lead, follow or get out of the way" quip by noting that it is possible to do worse than to duck out the door whenever things get rough.

Leadership in Government

When we complain of a lack of leadership in government, are we wishing for a leader who takes a "my way or the highway" approach, forcing his will upon the legislature, or are we looking for a consensus builder? Describing leadership in local government, Joe Ohren suggests it is the latter:

When strongly held views clash, and no single position commands a majority, then we either postpone action or work out a compromise. And, despite the fact that for some that term has negative connotations - selling out your principles or maybe even muddling through - it represents the best of politics and politicians.

What we call lack of leadership is often another label for lack of agreement. We want our mayors or school board chairs to be more effective at facilitating and finding consensus rather than muddling through. For me, that means being more effective politicians, since what is politics if not accommodating multiple and conflicting values, facilitating the decision process and avoiding the conflict, rancor and deadlock that result when we "stick to our guns." Muddling through is endemic to democracy.

On a national scale, it seems that Clinton often worked toward consensus (not controlling Congress for most of his Presidency, he had to), and despite any number of scandals left office with a high approval rating. Bush tried his "my way or the highway" approach with issues such as Social Security and, despite having a majority in both houses of Congress, stumbled badly and, at least by whatever standard is measured by opinion polls, is unpopular. I think both could have taken notes from the other - sometimes Clinton sought compromise over issues which called for direct leadership, and Bush often seems to display contempt for compromise where it is not likely to result in the outcome he desires. But at least by the measure of the last two Presidents, regardless of what our pundits have to say about the Democrats lack of leadership, at least in retrospect the public seems to have a greater appreciation for a President who can build consensus.