In this space and on the radio over the past week, I talked about some of the leadership deficiencies we see in the Obama White House. I talked about a management structure impossible for even the most competent executive – which Barack Obama clearly is not – to keep a handle on.
I talked further about the necessity of effective leaders surrounding themselves with quality people. I once heard a very effective CEO say one of the things that made him successful is that he is never the smartest person in the room – meaning he surrounds himself with people who are experts at what they do and know exactly how to get things done. From Kathleen Sebelius to Eric Shinseki to Susan Rice to Eric Holder to John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, we can see that Obama has surrounded himself with people who would follow the political program laid out by the White House, but really had no ability to effectively lead organizations (no matter how well you all may know some of their names).
This is an indictment of Obama as a leader and of the administration as a whole, but it also speaks to the culture of Washington and of the nation’s political class that none of this is really seen as a serious matter.
The president is both a governing figure and a political figure. We get that. And the president has to simultaneously govern the nation in service to the people while watching out for his own political standing. The Constitution designed the government to work in that way.
But the idea was that the president’s political fortunes would be tied to his actual performance in service to the people. The point of regular elections was to give the people the chance to make a change if the president a) failed to faithfully execute the duties of his office or enforce the laws; or b) pursued foolhardy policies that made the nation less prosperous and less secure.
When you look at the type of team Obama put together, and you consider his own lack of any leadership experience whatsoever, it should come as no surprise that he has failed at both A and B. And yet he has to be viewed as a political success, since he won election and re-election, and because he has managed to largely succeed at enacting his agenda.
The problem is that the political class – and this includes the mainstream media – has more respect for a president who wins elections and successfully pushes his agenda than they do for a president who faithfully executes his duties, protects the Constitution and gets positive results.
Even when Obama blatantly lies – you can keep your health care plan; Benghazi was caused by a YouTube video, there is not even a smidgen of corruption at the IRS; I’m going to close Gitmo; I heard about it on the news – the political class is more interested in how cleverly he tells the lie than in the mere fact that he is deceiving the American people.
In other words, in today’s America, we respect political shrewdness more than we respect faithfulness of duty and effectiveness in leadership. That is probably why Hillary Clinton is taken seriously as a candidate. She is viewed as a shrewd politician, and when it is pointed out that she has no real accomplishments on her record, the storyline is usually that those making this claim are not doing so with sufficient political shrewdness!
How is it working out to keep electing shrewd politicians who can’t lead, can’t manage, can’t govern and can’t be straight with the American people? We can’t sustain economic growth. We can’t control spending. We can’t run the VA. We can’t rein in the IRS. We can’t stop messing up people’s health insurance. We can’t fix the tax code. We can’t stop piling up debt. We can’t restructure entitlement programs. We can’t do anything about Russian aggression or Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
But we can analyze those red/blue maps!
If we are ever going to solve any of this, we need to the change the way we – as a nation – view the qualities we want in leadership. Solving problems requires difficult choices, and they can only be made by leaders who are willing to level with the American people about what needs to be done. Sometimes that starts with admitting your own mistakes. But ultimately it requires a good leader to pick the right people and focus on the right problems.
This president hasn’t done any of that, and yet he has been given the political rewards he has sought. Since the political rewards were what he wanted all along, he has no incentive to change and he will not. I pray we learn from this as a nation before we elect another president who behaves in the same way, and this starts with a reassessment of what really makes a good leader.
