Archive for the ‘Presidential Leadership’ Category

Apparently Obama’s response to Chicago Tribune reporter John McCormack’s questions about the Blagojevich affair have riled certain media commentators, who are now questioning Obama’s commitment to transparency. What a bunch of whiners. They either don’t understand the role of transparency in public policy, are desperate to make some news about something, or are just exaggerating the issue to pressure Obama into saying something that will excite them.

Here’s what happened during a recent news conference by President-elect Obama:

Obama Transparency Questioned

To this, commentators offered numerous complaints. For example, here’s Ethel Fenig at the American Thinker,

In other words, asking a legitimate question about Obama’s relationship with his state’s governor, even though it was not the purpose of the press conference, indicates The Office of the President-Elect will cut off all reporters who probe too uncomfortably in sensitive areas. A troubling message.

Mr. President-elect, this is the second time I have observed you doing this. Cutting off a reporter because the question didn’t suit you. Mr. President-elect, this sort of approach reminds a lot of us of the current administration now packing up to go, and it frankly doesn’t fly in a democracy. You don’t get to choose the questions you get asked at a news conference.

… You’ve made a deal with the prosecutor to keep a lid on certain information about this investigation until next week. Fine. But that doesn’t give you a blanket excuse to dismiss any and all questions associated with Blagojevich or anything else. You are the one who embraced openness, and you could stand to be a little more open to it.

..These are desperate times for many Americans and most of this country wants you to succeed. But you will not succeed if you discard the very ideals you promoted during your campaign: directness, honesty, candor, transparency, openness.

Wow, he declines to answer a question twice and he’s already being chided like small child for ruining democracy? But here’s the thing: Sure, you don’t get to choose the questions, but in democracy you can choose whether to answer them. Isn’t it reasonable to wait a week because the investigators had asked him not to say anything?

Now what we don’t want is the President of the United States making all kinds of misstatements and half-baked guesses about what happened. It would probably make headlines and keep the reporters awake, but it would be horrible presidential leadership. A little information control is reasonable. Its not like the Obama team has “lost” basically all the emails of two presidential terms, like Bush did.

What is Transparency?

These reporters are confusing the importance of transparency in pubic policy with answering every question asked. But it is ridiculous to think that the President of the United States has to answer every question immediately. Moreover, its petty to start whining that transparency, and in fact democracy, is gone because a few questions weren’t answered. This perverts the meaning of governmental transparency and also distorts the facts.

Like many people, I’ve been wondering, “What is President Bush doing about the economic crisis?” Apparently, not leading. Maybe hiding under his desk. CNN suggests that nobody is really stepping up to provide direction.

As the United States writhes in a collapsing economy, analysts and observers are wondering: Who’s skippering the ship? President Bush has been noticeably absent from the machinations aimed at righting the nation’s financial course.

Although the CNN article weakly cites President-elect Obama for not stepping into the limelight, the article also allows that the Obama camp is likely working behind the scenes and would show should leadership by naming a Secretary of the Treasury, which now appears done in the form of Tim Geithner.

President Bush should really have been front and center during the last few months. He at first did go on television to urge the passing of the bailout, but since then he has been largely in hiding. He should have been regularly reassuring Americans that everything possible was being done and outlining the steps that he was taking. At least the President-elect is moving in that direction with his weekly broadcasts on change.gov.

Now that the election is over, I’ve been seeing a lot of crazy talk in the news. At least its not all coming from the McCain campaign.

Bush's Brain

Some is though. At least a few of McCain’s team are ripping on Governor Sarah Palin, calling her essentially an ignorant hillbilly. Now, I was not a Palin fan, but didn’t these guys select her as their candidate without really knowing anything about her? And now they are surprised and angry? This scorched-earth style is just so reminiscent of Schmidt and Wallace’s mentor, Karl Rove. If you don’t believe me, read Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential.

Then there are people who are criticizing whatever name is floated for the Obama administration. Critics want him to get moving immediately and produce results. But, they also want him to do that without using anybody who has been in government before, especially from the Clinton or Bush administrations. (Those people are not change, they are “more of the same.”) Further, the critics also don’t want him to use the people who helped him get elected.

Now, let’s take a step back. How do you move fast? To move fast, you have to quickly find and bring in qualified and experienced people. Otherwise, there is going to be a long learning curve. But, since there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the last 20 years, the pickings are kind of small. And Obama has already said seances are out.

On top of that, how do you find people fast if you ignore the people you know well and trust? Searching for and vetting people is a time consuming process. This would take months even for a handful of people. Picking people without that kind of a process can be disaster, as the McCain apparently found out the hard way.

Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer

So realistically speaking, there are going to be a lot of Democrats and people who helped him get elected or who know people who helped him get elected in his administration. This is not cronyism, its just the way it has to be done. What he needs to do to create change though is bring together a mix of experienced people who have different perspectives and orientations, as well as a deep knowledge of government and world affairs. A great book recommendation for him is Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes for an Answer: Managing for Conflict and Consensus. In the book, Professor Roberto discusses how leaders should organize the decision-making process for best results. While the book is geared toward corporate leaders, the principles still make sense for political leaders. In fact, the author recounts in detail how President Kennedy revamped the decision making in the White House after the Bay of Pigs disaster. So the debate here is not whether President-elect Obama will be tapping Democrats and people he knows, but whether he will tap ones that bring a diversity of perspectives and a wealth of current and profound knowledge.