Posts Tagged ‘leader’
Leaders are not taught. They are made. None of the most successful presidents in our country’s history ever took a course on leadership. Few of our best CEOs, scientists, and scholars studied leadership systematically. They all emerged from a set of historical circumstances that encouraged particular kinds of thought and action. They all brought accumulated wisdom to pressing problems in new ways. Leadership is less vision than application, more adjustment than consistency.
Personality and character matter. Observation and reflection matter even more. The men and women who change history, change it based on how accurately they understand the world around them. Leaders frankly assess challenges and courageously turn them into opportunities for achievements. They neither accept the fate of their circumstances nor ignore the real constraints on their action. Leaders look for points of leverage where they can make a positive difference. They do not “reinvent” the world; they nudge it into a new and productive orbit.
Lincoln and FDR
This is what made figures like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt so special. They lived in times of acute difficulty, times when the future of American society was truly imperiled. They did not pretend that they had clear “solutions” to the immorality of slavery, the suffering of the Great Depression, or the threat of Fascism. The United States did not possess ready-made capabilities for dealing with any of these challenges, and the nation’s history did not offer useful precedents.
Lincoln and Roosevelt spoke forthrightly to their citizens about the difficulties they confronted. That was the source of their enduring eloquence. Lincoln and Roosevelt moved deliberately to gain leverage over their monumental challenges by addressing the focused problems they could solve: preventing Southern secession, putting unemployed citizens back to work, and denying Fascist enemies the means of attacking the United States again after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. These responses, as difficult as they were, served as opportunities to mobilize citizens and turn the tide of suffering and despair. These responses provided early progress and they fueled momentum for larger undertakings.
Only later, after these great leaders restored American confidence and capabilities, would they focus on the bigger goals: emancipating all slaves, maintaining economic growth, and making the world safe for democracy. Circumstances pushed Lincoln and Roosevelt in directions that they did not choose, but they acted strategically to convert necessity into long-term strength, growth, and security. Lincoln and Roosevelt understood their historical context, capabilities, and goals. Most of all, they were great leaders because they brought these elements together in their words and actions.
The Limitations of Current Leaders
Great leaders are synthesizers who re-make and re-apply the established ideas of others. They emulate and they experiment for a cause. We will need our president, congressional representatives, and other national leaders to do similar things in the next four years. So far, we have reason to believe that they are not prepared for leadership of this kind on either side of the political aisle. Our popular culture emphasizes simple slogans over complex analysis. Speeches, advertisements, and debates showcase ideological platitudes over detailed mastery of process. In a time of twenty-four hour news cycles and ubiquitous sound bites, the long-standing tendency to favor show over substance has greatly magnified. This means that it is easier to look like a powerful national leader than to act as one.
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama were both part of this dynamic. They ran campaigns that emphasized “strength,” “compassion,” “integrity,” and “change.” We have every reason to believe that they meant what they said. Nonetheless, in office they proved unable to gain lasting leverage over the biggest challenges to American society. They did not succeed in bringing ideas and policies together to restore public confidence that the wealthiest and most powerful government in the world could turn the difficulties of this era into new opportunities for growth and security. Public opinion polls in 2008 and 2012 show that even loyal voters recognized an absence of effective leadership in the White House. Dissatisfied voters in 2012 appear to have yet lower expectations for presidential candidate Mitt Romney. His vacuous policy statements have shown that he has little sense of how to turn current conditions to the advantage of American citizens as a whole.
What are the circumstances that our leaders are failing to address? What are the challenges that they are failing to convert into useful opportunities? Where are they consistently missing the mark?
The Big Issue of our Historical Era
Each historical era is defined by one big issue, and ours is clear: the proliferation of international competitors for America’s continued prosperity and security. Since the end of the Second World War American power and productivity insured ever-higher standards of living for citizens and ever-greater insulation from the ravages of war. Although poverty remains evident in parts of our country and many men and women serve bravely in our all-volunteer armed forces, the vast majority of educated citizens today live much better lives than their parents and grandparents. They consume more, they reside in bigger houses, and few will serve in battle. This experience of unprecedented prosperity and security was possible because the United States has been so dominant on every dimension of power and productivity.
America’s twentieth century dominance is far less clear in the twenty-first century. We continue to have the best armed forces, universities, and innovative organizations in the world, but our lead is now much less commanding. Small and highly organized insurgencies have proven that they can attack us, and they can force us to defend ourselves in ways that jeopardize our freedoms and break our budgets. The cost of security to the United States has become a major drag on our society.
Government-supported laboratories in China, India, Pakistan, Iran, and even North Korea have shown that they can now master some of the most complex technologies pioneered in the United States. Americans can no longer assume that new technologies will provide greater value to us than our civilian and military competitors. Formerly “under-developed” societies are now rapidly developing products to challenge what our best companies produce. They are developing weapons to undermine the security provided by our vast military arsenal. The pace of economic and technological change no longer favors the United States, as it has in past decades.
Most of all, factories drawing on easy access to information and cheap labor around the world have displayed how they can move dynamic innovation, production, and job-creation far from the United States. Educated American workers can no longer assume that they are positioned for lucrative jobs and a long-term share of the benefits from the most successful businesses. The outsourcing of production also means the outsourcing of opportunity, wealth, and family security. A globalized economy challenges the national image of middle-class family life.
American society remains second to none in overall power, but that status buys less of an advantage in prosperity and security than ever before. The high unemployment and declining incomes of the last five years reflect this global transition. For young, educated Americans entering the work force, life is harder than it has been in many decades. I see this every day in the attitudes and emotions of my students at the University of Texas at Austin. They are serious and they are scared. They do not believe that they will be able to maintain the high living standards that they now enjoy. They do not believe that the American dream of increased prosperity and security, guaranteed by the best and most powerful government, will be available to them.
Restoring the American Dream
The next president faces Lincoln and Roosevelt-like challenges in restoring faith in the American dream. As in the times of the Civil War and the Great Depression, our citizens confront competitive (now global) circumstances that they have trouble understanding. Many citizens, including my students, feel powerless to respond. They are looking up for leadership, and they generally see plastic smiles, superficial speeches, and empty suits. Struggling citizens are getting very little help from those positioned to explain and to inspire.
George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney all recognize the importance of leadership. They have all tried in their own ways. The problem is that they do not understand how to lead. They are looking for the “decisive action,” the “right idea,” or the “correct policy” that will take us out of our troubles. That was the point of the “Global War on Terror,” as prosecuted by Bush, but it did not work and it does not inspire. That was the hope of Obama’s economic stimulus and health care reform legislation, but they also did not work and they do not inspire. Candidate Romney has followed a similar pattern, promising tax cuts and spending reductions that will, somehow, restore American prosperity and security. Hardly anyone believes this, including the most prominent conservative writers in the United States today.
Points of Leverage
Bush, Obama, and Romney have missed the mark as leaders because they are searching for solutions not processes. They are trying to “think big,” without building from present circumstances and finding points of leverage where they can put the country on a new path. They are not speaking with the candor necessary about the depth of our challenges, and the opportunities that exist if we are willing to act and think in new ways. This is not about bipartisanship. It is really about post-partisanship.
What would effective leadership look like? It would begin with a clear statement that the American dream is alive, but it will look different in the twenty-first century from the century before. The same was true for citizens in the 1930s looking back to the 1860s. The content of American prosperity and security must change with the times. Leaders must acknowledge and embrace the flow of history. They cannot deny it.
Great leaders understand changing historical dynamics and they find ways to nudge them in new, beneficial directions. We cannot continue to consume more with every generation of citizens. A great leader must articulate a more sustainable model of comfortable living for all Americans. We cannot continue to expect that we will throw our weight around the globe with little cost. A great leader must define a more modest and secure framework for American foreign policy. Above all, we cannot assume that our young people will benefit from easily available opportunities to build their lives. A great leader must construct paths for a new generation to contribute in meaningful ways to the continued growth of our society. As always, inspiration and efficacy in the White House are about forward-looking adjustment, not dreams of a world receding before our eyes. A historically informed leader must recognize that you cannot turn back the clock.
Leadership is difficult, especially in times of increased competition. Very few men and women have the wisdom to lead a nation. Most of our politicians today are indeed deficient. The opportunity, however, is evident in the need for our society to turn the circumstances of our time to the long-term advantage of our citizens. Great leadership will not offer easy answers. It will inspire Americans to reinvent themselves as they have with stunning success in prior eras. That is the promising opportunity before us today.
The men and women likely to offer the leadership we need are not running for office today. They are sitting in my classes. They are the young people serving in our armed forces, starting their families, and struggling to pay for college. The difficult circumstances that we confront will give these citizens the insights and the humility to open new paths through our present circumstances. Leadership is, again, made from circumstances and experiences, not abstract ideas. Our best policy at present should be to encourage the fastest and fullest involvement of young people in the political process. The next generation will produce the leaders to secure our future prosperity and security. The present generation of politicians is part of the past.
This article originally appeared in the Austin Statesman newspaper on 7 October 2012.
June 6 is D-Day in Wisconsin, and the United States as a whole. We remember the brave men and women who struggled on to the Nazi-controlled beaches of Northern France sixty-eight years ago. That was a different America. We were a society deeply divided by race, ethnicity, religion, class, geography, and, of course, educational attainment. Even the wealthiest citizens had a lot less than the average American today. As sons and fathers shipped off to war, and daughters and mothers took up new jobs in factories, a divided population found a common public cause to unite around. President Franklin Roosevelt captured this common cause in his call for ecumenical prayer on D-Day:
“Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace, a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.”
The United States needs the promotion of a common cause again today. The most striking phenomenon about the bitter recall election in Wisconsin (only the third in all of U.S. history), and Governor Scott Walker’s victory, is how separated the pro- and anti-Walker voters are. They all live in a small state that one can comfortably drive across in a single day, and they all root for the Green Bay Packers, but they still seem to reside in different universes. They now speak different languages that come from the same root (a Midwestern English twang), but are almost incomprehensible to one another. The languages are, however, close enough that shouting loud one can hope the other side will understand. In fact, people are only hearing those who speak the same way.
Pundits comment everyday on the “divided,” “partisan,” and “combative” nature of American politics, but that only tells part of the story. This is about much more than ideology and politics. It is about more than money and race. Fundamentally, Americans have used the feet, their churches, their schools, and their iPhones to create huge affinity groups that can speak to one another in shorthand, and ignore everyone else. This, of course, is how separate languages are created: the echo chamber of familiar sounds.
The Wisconsin Recall was about two echo chambers. My friends, neighbors, and former colleagues in the cities of Madison and Milwaukee had strong and persuasive arguments about why Scott Walker has committed unforgivable sins. He slashed public services while he approved give-backs to his friends in business. He denied workers the right to bargain, drained public education and health institutions, and disdained peaceful student protesters, even admitting in a phone call call that he had considered inciting violence against them. My friends, neighbors, and former colleagues worked incredibly hard to unseat this evil man. They cannot understand why anyone would support such a terrible person.
Many other Wisconsinsites (about 53 percent of the state) cannot comprehend these heresies. Their perspective is more than a disagreement. It is an entirely different vision of the world. The recall advocates paint the state like Picasso with ominous colors and bright brush strokes; their opponents return to Norman Rockwell with virtuous, hardy, ordinary men and women, trying to make their way. The evils are off-screen: the elites and the dependents who do not belong. The unseen elites and dependents do not really work, they do not maintain good families, they do not go to church, and they do not love their country. They are leeches who have sold out the good American stock. They must be contained and reformed by simple and sincere ordinary men, like Scott Walker.
Anti-elitism is a powerful and persuasive message that resonates in difficult economic times today, as it did before the Second World War. The great historian Richard Hofstadter called this the “paranoid” style of American populism, but we might also see it as a strong strain of American anti-cosmopolitanism. To be good and trusted is to be simple and ordinary: “one of us.” This is a language that many small town and rural businesspeople, teachers, and parents speak everyday. It is not a language that my Madison and Milwaukee friends, often communicating with colleagues far away and running to airports to catch planes, can understand.
Oh sure, we can claim quite sincerely to care about the “people,” but the “people” we imagine really look much more like us than the large numbers (a majority in Wisconsin) who view us as elites. Although we sincerely seek diversity, what we get in our colleagues, our students, our neighbors, and our Facebook friends is more of the same. Even when we travel around the country and abroad, whom do we meet? People with similar education and professional status. People who speak our language.
The Recall in Wisconsin is a new D-Day because it should clarify, as the landings at Normandy did sixty-eight years ago, the common stakes we all have in “saving our country,” to quote Franklin Roosevelt. The clear tendency of our time is toward separation into affinity groups. We are losing the words to speak as one society. Again, this is not a new phenomenon. It is a sobering reminder of our history.
Unity and civility are not organic in such a large, dynamic, and conflict-prone society, even one with the Midwestern modesty of Wisconsin. Unity and civility require a common cause. They require hard and creative work among figures who believe there is a pressing need for antagonistic citizen groups to come together. Most of all, unity and civility require the leaders of affinity groups to model common cause, to reach across divisions and try to speak the other’s language. Grand gestures matter. Humility persuades. Charity to one’s adversaries provides a basis for some new trust.
We should remember that Franklin Roosevelt chose not to give a full-throated attack on his enemies, at home and abroad, during the first D-Day. Instead, he prayed. He prayed for togetherness, for mutual devotion, for faith in one another as American citizens: “And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose”
I have trouble imagining Governor Scott Walker, or my Texas Governor Rick Perry, in this healing and uniting role. As much as I try to see all sides, I speak the language of those who like Picasso, work in comfortable professional jobs, and support gay marriage. I spend much more time on airplanes than in church (synagogue in my case). I need convincing that Walker or Perry or Romney or someone else in the Republican Party really wants to bring Americans together for common cause, rather than dividing us for provincial short-term gain. I also remain to be convinced that there is anyone (including President Obama) who is capable of this in the Democratic Party.
One way or another, inspiring and then building common cause is the challenge of our time. It is the necessary requirement for the next great national leader. It will require someone, perhaps one of the individuals named above, to undergo the kind of transformation that turned Franklin Roosevelt from a scattered executive into a clairvoyant war leader, or the evolution that changed Ronald Reagan from a full-throated Cold Warrior into a prophet of peace.
Who will change? Who will take the first step on the new shores of our battle-hardened political landscape?
This post originally appeared at http://globalbrief.ca