Leadership and style: Sarkozy, JFK, LBJ, and GWB
Nidra Poller’s article about Sarkozy’s first few days in office reminds me once again of how important leadership can be in setting a new tone for a country and giving it a fresh breath of hope.
Maybe this is just a honeymoon, and the energy flowing through France right now will stagnate once again. But maybe not. For the moment, at least, it appears that a country that seemed mired in listlessness and old patterns of special interest groups has a new belief in itself, and a notion that things might actually have a chance of changing for the better there.
Among the reasons I find Sarkozy a fascinating figure is that he seems to possess qualities of leadership that are rare these days. “Leader” has been a somewhat tainted word in recent decades, perhaps because we associate it with brutal tyrants and/or mindless followers. In addition, the rebellious spirit of the 60s is not dead; those “question authority” bumper stickers are still in evidence, and those sporting them are inclined to question whole notion of leadership.
But leadership shouldn’t be questioned or rejected reflexively. A true leader can be bad or good; he/she is rarely indifferent. One of Bush’s great lacks is his inability to convey true leadership—a quality hard to define, but people know it when they see it.
Leadership is always somewhat connected with style, which seems an unfortunate and trivial thing until you think about it—because, after all, “style” is made up of many things, some of them deeply connected with character, and only some of them superficial. Sarkozy’s can-do and energetic style communicates the perception that he has the ability to act effectively, something France has apparently been hungering after for quite some time now.
France is lucky that Sarkozy appeared when he did—although that raises the ancient question of whether leaders make history or history makes leaders (I believe both are true). The US is hungering for something or someone similar, I think, and none of our candidates for 2008 quite make the grade.
The initial rush of enthusiasm for Obama reflected this desire, but unlike Sarkozy, Obama seems fuzzy around the edges and very green in terms of experience. McCain has the disadvantage of seeming like yesterday’s papers. Clinton and Giuliani have been around a long time, as well, and we’ve grown somewhat tired of them. The others seem to lack a certain je ne sais quoi, or to be too slick, or to be too narrow in their politics, to generate much excitement.
One of the most important things a leader conveys is hope. Despite being an older candidate, Reagan (whom I didn’t like at the time) had this quality in spades. The extremely youthful JFK had it as well, in addition to a wit and charm that was entertaining and refreshing (take a look at some of his old press conferences to see what I’m talking about, although the clips in question aren’t his best, at least according to my recollection).
I distinctly remember that one of the many sorrows of the Kennedy assassination was the contrast between Kennedy’s freshness and energy and his successor LBJ’s leaden qualities. And this despite the fact that Johnson had proven himself to be a Congressional leader of towering proportions. But the role of Senate Majority Leader, which Johnson held for six years until he was elected Vice-President under Kennedy, requires different qualities of leadership than that of President.
Johnson was a wheeler-dealer and arm-twister (as well as intimidator) extraordinaire in the Senate, but these qualities didn’t help him when confronted with the morass of Vietnam, and his ability to communicate with the American people was poor. When he spoke in his capacity as President, this man—who in private had a sharp and scatological tongue—seemed plodding and almost dim-witted.
In fact, the much-later-released private tapes LBJ made of his telephone conversations show a very different man from his public persona. As Harry Middleton, former Johnson aide and director of the LBJ library says:
The presidential president was very formal and very stiff in many of his press conferences and public statements. One on one, to small groups, he was colorful, witty, funny, a marvelous character. And that’s the way he was in the telephone tapes.
The tapes show, however, that Johnson’s mind was cloudy and muddled on the topic of what to do about the Vietnam War. His doubts were voiced almost every step of the way—at least in private.
Leaders can have doubts, but they need to be decisive after they weigh the issue, and to somehow convey that sense of conviction. LBJ did not, and his inability to plot a Vietnam course that made sense to him as well as convey that he had done so were part of the tragedy of his Presidency and of that ill-fated war.
In George W. Bush’s case, I don’t think he’s plagued by internal doubts to anywhere near the extent that Johnson was. His critics would say that he’s not plagued by enough of them, even when evidence is overwhelming that things need changing (the surge was too late, for example). I tend to agree somewhat with those critics. But in addition, Bush suffers from another LBJ affliction: an uninspired public delivery that fails to communicate whatever it is that the public perceives as the leadership it needs. And that has been part of the tragedy of his Presidency.
I enjoyed the essay, yet I disagree vis a vis Giuliani. I think Giuliani is quick on his feet, and an excellent leader.
Leaders know who they are, where they fit in the world, and what their principles are. Leaders do not have to dial up public opinion polls.
In the same vein: Leaders know who we are, and what our principles are. Leaders know what we want – even in moments when we are unsure of what we want. Leaders know our principles as well or better than we do.
Hillary fails on all counts. For a person who is so determined, and so self-disciplined (and I believe she is both), Hillary is strangely rudderless at her core. She has no principle more dear than getting herself elected.
I agree with your Obama assessment. I am captivated by his peripherals, yet his core is cotton candy light.
John Edwards, also, holds no principle higher than his own election. He makes my skin crawl.
McCain has lost his bearings.
Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani all look like outstanding leaders. They know who they are and what they stand for. They know who we are and what we stand for. They are optimistic. They are communicators. Because they know themselves, they can handle awkward moments, as Romney laughed off Mike Wallace’s “Did you have premarital sex?” question. None of the three is perfect, or will respond perfectly to everything – yet they are each outstanding. Excepting Reagan, these three are the finest Presidential candiates of the last 35 years.
The Looooong campaign will make it certain that the US public is tired of whoever is elected.
I agree that Bush’s delivery is mediocre, but what is terrible is that on so many non-Iraq issues he’s such a wimp, from education (joining Kennedy to make NCLB, so that Reps get blamed for a half-baked compromise that doesn’t quite succeed), thru Social Security abstention, thru new immigration amnesty for illegals.
On Iraq, I don’t believe a surge earlier would necessarily have been better.
Only Iraqis can win in Iraq — the US can only help choose which Iraqis are going to win. Once the Iraqis wrote their constitution and began voting, the US choices became even more limited, and rightly so. We are allies of the elected Iraqis.
A bigger tragedy of both Vietnam and Iraq is the US desire to win (GCS as Patton: “America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser.”)
But in fact, the Dems would be happiest if America lost AND Bush was blamed for it.
I wish Bush would emphasize the alternative Darfur choice — leave and allow genocide.
I’m not convinced any Reps are “outstanding leaders” though.
I think it’s way too early to say anything about Sarko’s qualities as a leader – although I hope he has the balls for what is to come.
Neo:
As far as I can remember, LBJ had one fatal flaw: deep down, he wanted to be loved.
Either he never read The Prince of he just couldn’t get the moral: for The Prince, it’s better to be feared than loved.
Note that when he was an effective Senate leader, he was feared. And with good reason.
But when he thought that a leadership position meant that he had to be loved, he flopped. Perhaps he thought that JFK’s secret of success was that he was loved. Not so…in the flesh, JFK was NOT lovable…but a grade A bastard. And thereby effective.
Leadership.
Well, militarily it means being able to calm your men, ensure that they have the essentials in equipment, arms, and food for their campaign, and that their morale is high. To lead, means to inspire, to command people to their deaths, whether taking those risks yourself or not. To lead, from the front, means to inspire your soldiers with your example, even if that should end in your death. For if this is a worthy enough cause for you to face and risk the fate of death and mutilation, then how can your soldiers call themselves men if they aren’t willing to follow you?
Don’t you find it curious that the paramilitary Left talks in tones of militaristic style of leading while at the same time hating and purging the US Military? Perhaps it has little to do nothing to do with violence, for the most violent are the Leftist revolutionaries, but rather maybe it has to do with values. The US military values discipline, ethics, and limitations. The US military is able to inspire people to make their lives better, through education, through discipline, and through esprit de corps. The Left seeks to tear down everything and everyone to nothing but chattel. So yes, they do say Bush should lead from the front, but not because they want to preserve the lives of men. But rather they hope Bush takes a bullet while leading the charge. Efficient, if a bit underhanded.
Moral leadership. To set an example on the right thing to do. Say, if your men are killing civilians and looting homes, you can either make an example of them to set the morality of your army, or you can just let it slide. Neither is a guaranteed success. This in a non-military setting, basically means rewarding just, loyal, and honest officers and followers. While punishing and applying ruthless power to traitors, criminals, and trash.
Political leadership, defined perhaps as the ability to wheel and deal, to convince people to do things, rather than ordering them to do so. Persuasion either through intimidation, bribes, or some misc works and techniques. Most of the time incompatible with military leadership because the military is not a consensus built on agreement, but rather a weapon forged for a purpose and that purpose is war. Not debate, argument, making laws, or doing kickbacks on deals.
Bush has about a 95% rating on the Moral Leadership in my view, but his style is completely unbalanced. And that’s the problem. You cannot lead through morality, if you aren’t willing to punish folks like Tenet, Berger, Plame, Wilson, Reid, Pelosi, leakers from State, leakers from DOD, leakers from… well you get the picture.
And it is not as if his military and politica leadership is a Zero, it is just that it is unbalanced. Meaning, he takes the good traints, dissects them, and then somehow reconstitutes them into his own personal way of doing things. Take military leadership for example. He is steadfast, which is something you want in an officer level leader, but he is also frackishly soft on the enemy, which you don’t want from an officer. Soft on the enemy means letting them run away and come back to fight another day, instead of relentlessly pursuing them until their defeat and retreat becomes a rout, and all discipline flees their army. Nathan Bedford Forrest did that.
Bush was a Governor and elected President, so his political leadership is not Zero. But again, it is unbalanced. The whole veto nothing except what you are going to tell folks you will veto, is its own thing. The veto is there to be used so the President can get deals under the table from Congress, meaning every Ted Kennedy bill or bill he votes for, will be VETOED by the President (as in threat) unless Ted Kennedy and the Left does what the President tells them to. That’s political leadership, people. Not this whole “let’s all talk about this in good faith, because we of course want the best for America, PillowC, Reid, and the Democrats?”
Right. I don’t think so.
Bush will one second authorize a war and not even wait for Congress, concerning Afghanistan. Then he does 1-2 years in the UN for Iraq…. All consistent in Bush’s way of doing things, but totally unbalanced Neo. Without balance, there can be no efficiency.
Fred Thompson?
Leadership is a tricky thing because it is rooted in subconsious, archaic levels of mass psychology. During all untold millenia of human history every tribe and clan needed chieftain, autority to obey and follow, and this need is not only pragmatical, but spiritual as well. Under democracy it also exists, as Pericles example shows. Athens could not live without him: even when he lost popularity and was put into exile, they found that their city-state can not function properly, and he was invited again to lead them. The role of US President is most alike role of Pericles in Athens: military commander and strategist combined with moral authority and orator, giving clear formulas representing popular sentiments or directing them. Communication skills are crucial to this role, just as moral integrity and “vision” of big picture. These qualities were so visible in two most successful presidents, Kennedy and Reagan.
James:
I think Fred Thompson will announce his candidacy soon…and he’ll get my vote.
Fred Thompson said he had just a touch of cancer; lymphoma wasn’t it? We’re better off with somebody who won’t croak on us.
We’re better off with somebody who won’t croak on us.
And if what his Vice President is Teddy Roosevelt, ala Guiliani?
Well, G’s got C too. Prostate. And to this layman’s eye, Fred looks the healthier.
Besides, your Teddy wants to take away our guns, which we’re going to be needing.
As a graduate of many leadership schools I think you confuse style with substance. President Bush is not one of the kiss a**, ‘style’ , leaders the public has came to expect as a result of 8 years of the greatest con jobs, and failures, in the history of the country. He is one of the ‘this is what is right’, do it leaders. For a country that survived 8 years of cons, lying and corruption (a quick search will show this is true, more corrupt members of the Slick administration than even the Nixon joke) with no real leadership, we are lucky to have any type of leadership.
I think it would be better if
a.) you could actually read French to see what’s really going on over there
b.) you got over your crush on Sarkozy. My Mom (who’s about your age and edu level) had a huge crush on Khadaffi forever, in spite of his human rights/news record.
Sorry to sound so insulting because I know that, at heart, you seem to be an intelligent and sensible individual. Just the same: please grow up and do a bit of looking outside yourself. It’ll open a bunch of horizons.
Just the same: please grow up and do a bit of looking outside yourself. It’ll open a bunch of horizons.
You are basing your political disagreement on whom your mom liked or disliked. And you’re telling someone else to grow up? Hello here, Freudian psychoanalysis need have maybe?
With so many results for a general search for an outkline of “The Role of The President” this neo-neocon page pulled up
…some of those words from President Kennedy, though not in order,