In my Obama as Zelig post, I suggested that the President takes the shape of the people around him. Friend and frequent interlocutor A.I. took offense and accused me of psychologizing. I thought this odd, as I referred only to the behavior of the Barack Obama and those around him and not at all to any hidden psychological mechanisms.
In my defense, I point out these passages from Maureen Dowd:
Our president likes to be on both sides at once.
In Afghanistan, he wants to go but he wants to stay. He's surging and withdrawing simultaneously. He's leaving fewer troops than are needed for a counterinsurgency strategy and more troops than are needed for a counterterrorism strategy — and he seems to want both strategies at the same time. Our work is done but we have to still be there. Our work isn't done but we can go.
On Libya, President Obama wants to lead from behind. He's engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi while telling Congress he's not engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi.
On the budget, he wants to cut spending and increase spending. On the environment, he wants to increase energy production but is reluctant to drill. On health care, he wants to get everybody covered but will not press for a universal system. On Wall Street, he assails fat cats, but at cocktail parties, he wants to collect some of their fat for his campaign.
This is, of course, all accurate observation and no psychologizing. Ms. Dowd is criticizing the President's political decision making, not his superego. She is doing a devasting job of it.
I would add that my argument picks up the pattern. The President is perfectly capable of reaching a strong and daring decision, as he did when he decided on the Afghanistan surge. All it took was for every single person in the room to endorse the decision. The President himself said to the room that if anyone disagreed, they would go back to the drawing board.
When there is no consensus, Obama virtually never makes the call. He simply reflects the lack of consensus, as Dowd shows above. I think I got the President right.
Lincoln fits the same criteria you are assigning to Obama.
From the Lincoln wiki: "As a Whig activist, Lincoln was a spokesman for business interests, favoring high tariffs, banks, internal improvements, and railroads in opposition to the agrarian Democrats. Donald in his 1996 biography opined that Lincoln was distinctly endowed with the personality trait of negative capability, defined by the poet John Keats and attributed to extraordinary leaders who were "content in the midst of uncertainties and doubts, and not compelled toward fact or reason.""
Posted by: larry kurtz | Sunday, June 26, 2011 at 05:14 PM
Larry: no.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Sunday, June 26, 2011 at 05:31 PM
More: "Each time a general failed, Lincoln substituted another until finally Grant succeeded in 1865 (Petraeus). An exceptionally astute politician deeply involved with power issues in each state, he reached out to War Democrats and managed his own re-election in the 1864 presidential election. As the leader of the moderate faction of the Republican party, Lincoln came under attack from all sides. Lincoln avoided hunting and fishing out of an aversion to killing animals. Lincoln later regretted some of his statements, especially his attack on the presidential war-making powers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
Posted by: larry kurtz | Sunday, June 26, 2011 at 06:15 PM
If you have ever had training in community organizing you will recognize certain elements. Obama's approach to decision making incorporates the idea that everyone has something of value to contribute, that the best decisions tend to grow from a process of active dialogue between people of differing ideas. The organizer's job is to encourage that dialogue, while not imposing his own ideas in a way that cuts short the process. I have no problem with the process Obama uses. Once the process is complete, Obama has no problem making a decision.
I do have a problem with whom he includes and doesn't include in the process. He excludes the entire progressive wing of his party, while including the Republicans.
Posted by: Donald Pay | Monday, June 27, 2011 at 02:33 PM
Larry: Lincoln had a hard time finding a winning general. That's not a sign of indecision, its a sign of having a hard time finding a general. Lincoln knew exactly what policy he was pursuing, and he was willing to back it all the way. Lincoln didn't promise to pull Federal troops out of the South in a year just as he was putting more in.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Monday, June 27, 2011 at 07:14 PM
Donald: I am sure you are talking about someone, but it isn't our President. Week after week after week the Administration set deadlines for an Afghanistan decision. I have described how that decision was made by the room and not by the President. What was the decision? See Dowd above.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Monday, June 27, 2011 at 07:16 PM
Yeah, you and Dowd are great storytellers. But here is an article based on fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html
Posted by: Donald Pay | Monday, June 27, 2011 at 07:55 PM
Donald,
"He excludes the entire progressive wing of his party, while including the Republicans."
What a bunch of B.S.!
His cabinet and Czars are some of the most Leftist Radicals the country has ever seen. He basically thru the entire Health Care bill over to Pelosi and Reid for them to decide. Are you seriously claiming that they are not Progressive?
The Financial Regulatory Legislation was all Dodd & Frank. Pretty much every decision that has been made with the exception of Military decisions have been made with the Radical Progressive Idiology out front, and including all the Democratic Socialists laced throughout our government.
The entire Democratic machine has proven to be a complete failure, and we got people running around trying to say that it is a failure because Obama listens more to his political opposition? Who do you really expect to beleive this crap?
Posted by: Jimi | Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM
http://www.transitionjobs.us/appointments
The list of cabinet members. Please point out the people you think are leftists here. I don't see any.
Posted by: Donald Pay | Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 02:24 PM
WOW!
Posted by: Jimi | Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 06:29 PM
Good eye, Mr. Pay: Hilda Solis is a lefty but the rest are moderate Democrats.
Posted by: larry kurtz | Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 07:48 PM
Maybe our President is actually Silik, you know, the shape-shifting Suliban official.
I'd like to see him shape-shift into Michele Bachmann!
I loved the episode where he slithered through a mail slot like "the blob."
Posted by: Stan Gibilisco | Wednesday, June 29, 2011 at 12:14 AM
Donald: that article can't be based on facts; it's from the New York Times. Try the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/05/AR2009120501376.html?sid=ST2009120503262
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Wednesday, June 29, 2011 at 10:35 PM