Obama’s Leadership Fail
Back when I was a lad, every summer our family loaded up the Chevy Suburban (or Ford Van which replaced it) and headed West or Northeast for a camping trip. One year, we visited Wyoming, Montana and Alberta. After hiking i Yellowstone National Park, our parents planned to take us to Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness, but one of my younger brothers took ill. They changed the plans, we headed to Great Falls to seek medical attention.
A visit to a doctor and a few days rest at a local Holiday Inn and soon my brother was back to normal.
The lesson of this anecdote should be familiar to anyone who has found himself in a position of responsibility. When the circumstances change, you need to change your plans. My parents recognized that with my brother’s illness, we could not continue the trip as planned.
So too should Obama recognize that with increasing evidence of a growing terror threat and continuing uncertainty about the economy, he has to turn his attention from regulatory schemes like health care and cap and trade and focus on jobs and national security.
Sometimes, I wonder if the president pushed through such a massive “stimulus” at the outset of his Administration, assuming that releasing so much cash would be certain to create jobs. The economy would pick up, allowing Democrats to focus on their pet big-government projects.
But, things didn’t work out as planned.
That’s why this Democrat needs to learn from FDR. Had it not been for the wars in Europe and the Far East, had that Democrat bid for a third term in 1940, he likely would have lost the presidential contest that fall, to be known to history as an inspiring failure. But, as the threat to Western Civilization grew, he pivoted to meet the emerging challenges. Magazine covers notwithstanding, the latest Democrat to occupy the White House shows few signs of following in his illustrious predecessor’s footsteps.
The “stimulus” hasn’t worked. He needs develop new and different programs to increase employment.
His national security team offered a ham-handed response to the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253. He needs shake up that team and devote greater attention to the terrorist threat. Obama, as Rudy Giuliani contends, may have “turned the corner” in his understanding of that threat, but he needs show that he has made countering it a priority.
Eight years ago, George W. realized he could no longer focus on the domestic issues which defined his campaign. He knew that 9/11 changed everything. His successor hasn’t faced such a catastrophic attack, but the juxtaposition of the event on Christmas Day and the unemployment figures released today show us the issues of paramount importance to our nation.
In our daily lives, we all recognize that we must change our plans to address unforeseen circumstances. The way we handle such circumstances marks out qualities of leadership. It is why Americans of all political stripes admire Captain Chesley Sullenberger.
True leaders change course when circumstances merit. Obama appears to be standing pat.
13 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
That’s why this Democrat needs to learn from FDR. Had it not been for the wars in Europe and the Far East, had that Democrat bid for a third term in 1940, he likely would have lost the presidential contest that fall, to be known to history as an inspiring failure.
Dan, this is a complete history FAIL. Roosevelt campaigned on an isolationist platform, just as Wooodrow Wilson had in 1914. His opponent, Wendel Willkie (remember him from Amity Shales “Forgotten Man”) ran as a firm supporter of the future allies. FDR won handily, netting something like 450 of the 520 something electoral votes (I’ll look up the numbers in a bit, but I know I’m close). Yes, FDR did provide covert support for the allies even during the fall of 1939, but most of his moves were kept from the public eye.
PS. I was very close on the election stuff – 449 to 82
Comment by sonicfrog — January 8, 2010 @ 9:47 pm - January 8, 2010
It only made sense that the “Stimulus” would fail because it is and was the wrong policy prescription.
If they were following the real Keynesian economics then much of that “stimulus” would have been thrown out. This is because in the existing set of circumstances the policy prescription would be for a decrease in taxes, especially company taxes, and any payroll taxes.
The economics of Roosevelt were not Keynesian and I do think it is wrong to claim that they are Keynesian. However, what Keynes proposed and is ignored in these times of high unemployment is work for the dole. I am personally a proponent of work for the dole.
When people are paid to sit on their backsides and do nothing then the economy has no way of expanding in the right way. One has to look objectively at all of the factors that make up an economy. The problem today in most countries is too much Govt via tax and welfare handouts. You cannot expect proper sustainable economic growth when govt becomes bloated. If govt keeps on with the welfare handouts and increasing taxes, then the tax base itself is only going to shrink because the taxes are not sustainable, and on top of that people are being thrown out of work because of these govt taxes.
I do not have access to books on Roosevelt and how he handled the Great Depression, especially the more recent analysis of the Roosevelt years. What I can say, though, is that Australia faced the same situation in the Great Depression. I can also say that the last downturn that we faced was not as bad as those factors that led to the Great Depression, but policies such as the “stimulus” bill had the potential to throw the economy over the edge.
It is claimed that we are recovering. I think maybe that is true but I have my doubts that it is the case. I do know that Australia was not so badly affected and that there was no need for a pork stimulus bill like we got last year.
Comment by StraightAussie — January 8, 2010 @ 10:34 pm - January 8, 2010
I lived during the 20s and 30s. I was very familiar with the WPA. the CCC and many other “Prime the Pump” schemes and they did NOT get us out of the depression. The worst part of the depression for my family and my neighbors were right up until we got into the War.
Comment by John W — January 8, 2010 @ 11:16 pm - January 8, 2010
sonic, I actually got this notion from Shlaes–I’ll have to look it up–basic point is that with anxiety about world situation, people wanted someone at the helm whom they could trust. You know that steady hand thing. Issue wasn’t his support of the Brits or opposition to the Japanese (but he was, I understand, quite an Anglophile), but the character issue.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 9, 2010 @ 12:52 am - January 9, 2010
Before 9/11 G.W. Bush was an empty suit. After 9/11, he acted boldly from the passion within. (I am not interested in defending either side of the equation, I am simply making an observation.)
My opinion of Obama is that he, too, is an empty suit, but that he has nothing more within to give. He struts and poses and reads beautifully from a teleprompter and glows when the klieg light is properly adjusted. But, like many a news reader, away from the set and on his own he is Spam on Wonderbread.
Obama sowed the political landscape with his hopenchange salt so I can not see how he is going to change his cast, rewrite the script, have a Come to Jesus meeting with America and reinvent himself in full view.
Comment by heliotrope — January 9, 2010 @ 10:00 am - January 9, 2010
[...] GayPatriot – Obama’s Leadership Fail [...]
Pingback by All American Blogger » Saturday Link Love – AC/DC Edition — January 9, 2010 @ 11:50 am - January 9, 2010
Dan, first, thanks for the typo-alert.
Now to FDR and the steady hand. In 1939, THE issue that had been in the forefront for the decade was of course the economy. The entire two terms of FDR’s presidency was focused on that one issue. It was THE SINGULAR concern of the entire nation. How could FDR have been seen as having a steady hand, yet prime for an election loss because of his failures on economic growth?
When I read Shales book, I was extremely disappointed. She spent more time naming names, who was a socialist or commie, than she did actually looking at the different FDR alphabet soup if programs and detailing their shortcomings. Se came off as a neo-McCarthyite. It’s easy to look back and postulate that the economy would have done better with out FDR’s federal interventionist programs. But it is a fact that by 1939, the economy, compared to the worst of the depression, had grown substantially, and, though we can now look back and point to missed opportunities that could have made things better, the populus of the day gave the credit to FDR.
Hope that came out OK. Haven’t had breakfast yet. I’m hungry. Get sloppy when hungry. Must go eat now.
Comment by Sonicfrog — January 9, 2010 @ 11:52 am - January 9, 2010
Sonic, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ll see if I can find the quote, pretty sure it was in Schlaes.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 9, 2010 @ 12:33 pm - January 9, 2010
OK.,And my bad. It is Schlaes, not Shales.
Comment by Sonicfrog — January 9, 2010 @ 2:08 pm - January 9, 2010
The stimulus was not meant to improve the economy nor increase jobs.
Its intent was to reimburse union contributions to the Dems’ and Obama’s campaign.
That’s why little of it has been spent. The bulk is scheduled (as it always was) to be spent this year to keep Dems in office.
Comment by Clare — January 9, 2010 @ 6:24 pm - January 9, 2010
That’s a rich and disturbing remark. First, FDR’s programs amounted to an American version of fascism. Obama has, to our great harm, already learned from them. Let’s hope he doesn’t learn even more from them. Second, the way FDR stifled the economy, a World War was the only way to get out of it. I’m not saying FDR started it; I’m saying FDR welcomed it and benefitted politically from it. There again, let’s hope we *do not* have a repeat with Obama. Let’s hope that we do not have years of Obama stifling the U.S. economy, followed by involvement in a ghastly world war under his or his successor’s leadership. God please forbid!
What programs? Only “un-programs” will increase employment: that is, reducing and repealing existing government programs.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 10, 2010 @ 12:32 am - January 10, 2010
…even as, history shows, Roosevelt was plotting with Churchill to increase U.S. involvement in the war. In other words: Roosevelt was a liar. He ran under false pretenses. Another area where Obama has clearly learned from Roosevelt. Because, you see, Obama campaigned as a fiscal conservative (as Dan has often and rightly reminded us).
…which shows he was more honest than Roosevelt. But, is the adjective “firm” justified? Wiki says,
As for this:
The more so because there are clear and instructive examples from American history which prove the point. Look into the Depression of 1920. Nobody remembers it. Why? Because the government did all the right things to solve it: government shrank itself, avoided “stimulus”, balanced its budget, avoided bailouts, avoided intervention. And it worked. The economy bounced back within two years, in fact it became known as the Roaring 20s economy.
In other words, by 1939 the economy moved to a D- state, from F state. It is more significant fact that by 1939, unemployment was still extreme and it was Big Government policies – first of Hoover’s, then of Roosevelt’s – that kept us there. Roosevelt had the single worst economic record of any President in U.S. history (before or since). Big Government causes unemployment. The mechanisms are several; I’ve detailed them in other comments and can do so again if needed. Roosevelt’s own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said this in 1939 of Roosevelt’s programs:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 10, 2010 @ 12:54 am - January 10, 2010
I have to agree with sonicfrog. FDR is not someone to idealize. In fact, I consider him to be one of the worst Presidents ever. I’m currently reading The Roosevelt Myth by John T. Flynn, it will come as a total shock about the character of FDR. He was no hero!!!
Comment by Scherie — January 10, 2010 @ 3:15 pm - January 10, 2010