Obama's Leadership Style (Repost from HP)

I felt strongly enough about this article that I wanted to repost the link. I feel it is one of the most accurate assessments of President Obama's leadership style and (at least for me) answers a lot of questions about President Obama.

I have been posting about Obama's leadership style for a number of months and I really couldn't articulate it well. This article seems to cover the subject as well as anything that I have read.

Sorry, I could not find the original post the referenced this article.

-----------------------

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry). In fact, the president's leadership style, combined with the Democratic Congress's penchant for making its sausage in public and producing new and usually more tasteless recipes every day, has had a very high toll far from the left: smack in the center of the political spectrum.

-----------------------

Leadership means heading into the eye of the storm and bringing the vessel of state home safely, not going as far inland as you can because it's uncomfortable on the high seas. This president has a particular aversion to battling back gusting winds from his starboard side (the right, for the nautically challenged) and tends to give in to them. He just can't tolerate conflict, and the result is that he refuses to lead.

-----------------------

The second problem relates to the first. The president just doesn't want to enunciate a progressive vision of where this country should be heading in the 21st century, particularly a progressive vision of government and its relation to business. He doesn't want to ruffle what he believes to be the feathers of the American people, to offer them a coherent, emotionally resonant, values-driven message -- starting with an alternative to Ronald Reagan's message that government is the problem and not the solution -- and to see if they might actually follow him.

-------snip-------------
The complete article....must read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/could-we-have-predicted-w_b_780250.html

-P

Now posted.

Oh yea saw this yesterday in GD. This should be interesting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not posting to "bash" President Obama. I'm simply trying to understand why he operates in the manner he does.

I simply thought that this article came closest to correctly assessing President Obama's personality and leadership style. It may be completely wrong to some...it just rang true to me. This article doesn't say that Obama is evil. His personality is what it is.

-P

:eyes:

social security!

looks like you are making shit up. What came out today was the first of many suggestions.

I suggest you read the thread about Bernie Sanders saying that Obama has the best plan for SS. I'm sure you won't read it because hey, it takes away from this bullshit post you made here.

Yesterday when I commented on this over in GD. Although the author works in the field of psychology he is not diagnosing or analyzing the president. This is purely an opinion piece. Some people are going to agree with him and some people are not. I think it depends on where you stand in regards to this president. IMO,if you truly want to understand his behavior you would have to come at the topic without bias and with an open mind. That is just my take on it.


The author was very careful not to use medical jargon in regards to the president's leadership style. However, I believe the author understands that people are going to take his words to heart because of his occupation. I wonder, how some would react if a psychologist with a different take were to write an article. Would it be a must read?

People have preconceptions of the President. I'm sure that I'm no exception. Honestly, I really didn't read this article with the author in mind. I don't think I gave it much weight.

I'll repeat that, at least in my opinion, this article explains a lot with regard to the decisions the President has made. I don't think that this article paints the president as evil or as a man who does not operate in good faith. It is simply what it is. His personality and leadership style are of the greatest importance in approaching the serious issues we face. This was the first article that I read where the author's position is so well supported by empirical evidence (i.e. the actions of the President).

-P

Well ... not so much your post ... but the aspect you describe above. The positioning of the article by Huff-po, and the author, has the effect of positioning his OPINION as that of an "expert". And you and I had a good exchange somewhere in the middle of the thread.

As a Pd.D in psychology, I do have a different OPINION from that author. And while I might share that, I would also indicate that my credentials as such, are not relevant in the opinion.

There is a reason that psychologists should not analyze family members. Similarly, you don't "analyze" people you've never met. And, if you want to stand back and do such an assessment of some one else, then you need to make clear that your "analysis" can not be seen as an authoritative perspective.

Here is an example ... there was a thread recently around the Meyers-Briggs scores of Palin and Obama. Lots of people put forward opinions. I did too. The Meyers-Briggs scores are interesting, and a fun party game. Get a bunch of friends together, find a short, free, on-line Meyer's Briggs test, and have everyone at the party take it. Then, go around the group discussing the scores. It is hilarious.

But I digress ... in that Meyers-Briggs thread, I mentioned my background, but then I also indicated that doing any such assessment from a distance is inherently flawed ... and so could be way off. So, what I was doing was explaining my OPINION, about what I can see in their PUBLIC behavior (which is insufficient to make a real assessment), and then also which parts of my "credentials" were influencing my opinion as to their scores.

The current author doesn't put forward the possibility that his assessment might be wrong. That his own bias, and personal views, might be impacting how he assesses Obama's leadership style.

Being an objective professional in psychology is hard. You have to be on guard for your own personal bias all the time so you can actively try to prevent that bias from seeping through. And in situations where you know you can't be "professionally objective", like in an OP-ED, then you must indicate that.

I don't see this guy trying to do that in his article ... and Huffpo didn't seem to care.

The language alone speaks volumes. I read the article a couple of times today. I find it hard to believe that the author has been observing the president without bias. For instance when he states

"For his part, from his post-election press conference through his appearance on 60 Minutes through his inexplicable decision to jet off to Asia in a way that seemed to underscore to the American people his disinterest in both their domestic concerns and the feelings they had just expressed at the ballot box, the president once again illustrated three interrelated hallmarks of his presidency:"

That paragraph is his opinion. He did not cite a poll or stats to back up the claim that the American people felt jaded about the trip to Asia. He did not do so because that is his opinion. He further uses that opinion to describe the president's leadership style. That observation is not coming from a neutral place. So when people say that the author's article contains empirical evidence they are wrong. In order for it be empirical evidence it must be an objective observation.

And while I did read the original article when it came up in you thread before, and probably 2 or 3 times actually ... as I searched for the author demonstrating an ethical stand ... which I did not find ...

Your Asia point above rings a few bells for me ... Obama has scheduled this trip, and then canceled it, I think (could be wrong) at least twice ... once during the HCR fight, and I think once again when the BP oil spill occurred.

The quote you reference above, seems to expect that he cancel the Asia trip AGAIN.

The GOP has a habit of taking whatever Obama is doing TODAY, and then screaming that he should be focused on something else. And when he switches focus, they switch focus too (my opinion).

In any case, I'm a big advocate of all voters working to separate their OPINIONS from OBSERVABLE FACTS. Like I said, even as a "professional psychologist" this is hard to do. It's even harder if you have no training. But I think this separation should be TAUGHT to kids.

I try to teach my kids these 3 questions. What do you think? What do you know? What do you feel? And after answering those, are they they same, if not, why not?

IMO those are great questions to ask a child. It teaches them to recognize that feelings and opinions are different than facts.

In regards to this article I think the author is crossing the line in regards to ethics. People are out there calling his observations empirical evidence when they are not. I wonder if some people would make that connection if the author was an accountant?

It's ridiculous to say he does not like conflict. Or that conflict by itself is good. You can look like an idiot, too. Palin has the "guts" to say what she means, but also not the self awareness to realize she looks like an idiot. Her followers are sure she is "tough" and all that, but she's going to be marginal even with the Republicans, because she looks like an idiot.

There's no reason for the President not to weigh every word he says in public. I would expect that. Angry rants are nothing you will get from one, and that's not weakness or fear of conflict.

Using the President as scapegoat for your frustrations is a cop out. Refusing to admit that the political landscape is as it is. the President realizes that and deals with it accordingly.

He has signed legislation that counters Reagan's message. He just needs to more strongly make the case for lean, mean government that's there to help make the country a safer, more equitable place with greater opportunities for all....

"I felt strongly enough about this article that I wanted to repost the link. I feel it is one of the most accurate assessments of President Obama's leadership style and (at least for me) answers a lot of questions about President Obama."

Really? :wow:


If this is the case, this means only that I can safely put you on ignore,
and feel like I will never miss anything of true value, as it obvious to anyone
down to my children that this ain't nothing but a bunch of right wing talking points
disguised with emoting the 20% of the whining Left wing of the Naderite party
playing "analysis" by way of an "OP-ed" to sway the dumbasses that read
Huffington, a site devoid on any good will when it comes to this administration.

How old are you?

I'm sorry that you feel that way. As I stated before, I am only expressing my OPINION that this article accurately reflects the reason why President Obama seems to lack the necessary leadership. If I'm the only one that feels that way....well, that's fine.

I agree...It is very difficult to be objective. In fact, I dare say that it is impossible. I have admitted my preconceptions.

What I think that is important here is that regardless of the opinion of the author, many people believe that President Obama lacks the kind of leadership necessary to help guide us out of the mess we are in. This doesn't make President Obama evil or anything other than a well-meaning man that has the best interest of our country in his heart. I simply don't think he is hard wired to successfully guide this country in the right direction. Having said that....I also believe that what he is facing is unlike anything any President has ever faced.

-P

Sid