Very few leaders have control over the people who work for them. In fact, research clearly shows that none of us has as much control over our lives as we think. Control is largely a fiction. It's a useful fiction. Don't get me wrong. We don't want to get up each morning terrified of the day to follow. But life is composed more of events we can't control than those we can.
Being President of the United States does not bring with it any greater degree of control. If Obama were a different type of leader-in-the-making, he would choose nonthreatening novices to ensure his being in charge. But isn't that "decider" routine part of what we were trying to end?
Barack Obama has the capacity to be controlling, and perhaps an inclination to do so. Whenever he speaks of "my commanders," I cringe. It sounds kingly. "America's commanders" or "our commanders" would be better. But, to his credit, and due to his better judgment, he trusts talent more that obsequiousness. Combined with organization and preparation, he relies on motivating people to follow his lead. He has the confidence to believe no matter how powerful the politician at his side, a reasonable meeting of the minds is possible most of the time.
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times criticized the choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State by arguing: "When foreign leaders spoke with Baker, they knew that they were speaking to President Bush, and they knew that President Bush would defend Baker from domestic rivals and the machinations of foreign governments."
We're to derive from this observation the conclusion that things were better then.
Friedman argued too:
Foreign leaders can spot daylight between a president and a secretary of state from 1,000 miles away. They know when they're talking to the secretary of state alone and when they are talking through the secretary of state to the president. And when they think they are talking to the president, they sit up straight; and when they think they are talking only to the secretary of state, they slouch in their chairs. When they think they are talking to the president's "special envoy," they doze off in mid-conversation.
From this we are supposed to conclude that President-elect Obama is so naïve about the perspicacity of foreign leaders that he chose for SOS someone from whom he intends to distance himself. And, we're to assume that Hillary Clinton, who Friedman considers to be "smart, tough, cunning, hardworking" and someone who "knows the world" gave up power in the Senate to take a job that will isolate her from the future president.
I don't think so, Tom.
No one can be in all places at all times. The best leaders keep an ear to the ground, communicate well, negotiate as needed, learn every day, and stand ready with highly competent teams to take on whatever comes their way. They are not micro-managers and they do not fear the people they hire will take over the store.
Far worse are people who surround themselves with the trappings of leadership, including people who never tell them they're wrong. These are false leaders who lack confidence, often with good reason.
Fear of dissension is a hold over from times past when leaders were "great men" who had the answers and wielded power. Leaders now need credibility far more than they need control - even if they could obtain it. They need people working with them who know what to do in times of crisis, who respect those deserving it and are accorded respect in return. The best leaders surround themselves with the best talent and make sure these experienced geniuses can negotiate too.
While many people are measuring his choices based on how much of some fixed-pie of control Obama will accede, the real issue is how much confidence he has that when unsettling or frightening, unanticipated, negative events occur on their watch they'll respond effectively and constructively. And that even the most ego-laden among them will admirably put people and country first.
Dr. Reardon also blogs at bardscove.
I voted for him because I trust his intellect, temperament, coolheadedness, class, style, etc. etc.
Let the man do as he sees fit. If it doesn't work out, then start dumping on him if you must.
No one really knows his motives for picking Hillary but, I do think he is telling the truth in saying he needs differing views.
He has done things before that set many on edge only to look foolish later when his strategy turns out be correct so, I think it's far too early to criticize right now. Let him be sworn in and see what he does.
If it turns out badly, then of course we should criticize but, right now, it's just looking for something to complain about.
This sounds extremely naive and just doesn't reflect political realities. While we can't predict the future with Obama's choices, we can certainly look to the past at other presidents' choices. Most people with "strong egos" do NOT put people and country first.
The first person I think of is General Douglas McArthur, who was fired because he defied President Truman's agenda of containment in the Korean conflict and crossed the line from military parameters into the political arena because he had an egomaniacal determination to call the shots.
There are many other individuals in high-level government positions who have been fired because they tried to wrest power from arenas where they did not have the authority, certainly not concerned about putting people and country first at all.
One can HOPE that Obama's cabinet with wildly-differing political viewpoints will always put people and country first, but that's about as realistic as hoping every day will be filled with sunshine.
It is possible to entertain an enormous range of approaches to problems with a staff who share the same general political perspective and at the same time are committed to putting people and country first.
We'll eventually hear about conflicts among Obama's staff unless Obama is able to "control" them so they don't let the cat out of the bag.
It should be interesting, though I'm very weary of political drama.
You're right though, should be interesting.
I voted for Barack Obama because I belive he has the inteligence, wisdom , and disposition to lead this country. I'm content to trust him to do just that.
I read his book "from Beirut to Jerusalem", which was a great book...I think he liked the money, so every so often he retreats to his in-laws' chateau(yeh, it is one) and writes a book and comes back out and does the cirucuit to sell them..
And, now, he doesn't like Clinton...oh well!
The MSM has no credibility, IMHO...they are running out of pundit with the 24/7 news cycle.
"PEACE Plan, an effort to mobilize 1 billion Christians to P_romote reconciliation, E_quip servant leaders, A_ssist the poor, C_are for the sick and E_ducate the next generation."