A Crisis of Leadership!

As I read through the various reports on the current financial crisis, whether news reports or op-ed pieces, what is quite stark is that we're suffering from a critical lack of leadership.

We have a President to whom no one is listening. He has become a cypher, uttering words that fall on deaf ears. He cries out, calling on Congress to do the right thing, but his own party runs the other way. He will go out of office deemed one of the most ineffective Presidents ever -- and people wonder if they should have voted differently in 04 and 00.
Henry Paulson is the lead man on the bailout proposal, but he is an ineffective salesman. He hasn't explained in any understandable way the issue at hand. Congress will, at least in the short run, be handing this rescue plan to him.
Congressional leaders have failed in many ways to transcend partisan bickering. Though I think tonight they'll manage to bring this thing in (but only because they added sweeteners).
The two Presidential contenders are in a difficult spot. They have political capital, but no power to deliver. Whoever wins will inherit this mess, but they really can't do much. John McCain interjected himself into the process and the result wasn't pretty. Obama tried to stay out of it as much as possible, recognizing that his involvement could have unpredictable consequences, both for him and the deal. Both men will vote yes tonight and will urge their colleagues to do the same. Hopefully all of this is enough to bring this part of the saga to a close.
When it comes to the next President's leadership -- that is still to be seen. Barack Obama and John McCain are two very different people. McCain is unpredictable and reactive. His maverick trademark is popular with many voters, but while that kind of person might be needed in government, is it the right temperament for this office? Obama has shown calm coolness and his campaign has run smoothly, with few hiccups. He has the same team today as he had at the beginning. He's never had money problems. He seems unruffled by things that come his way. All of that seems like the kind of leadership qualities we need at this time. But of course, in many ways he remains untested. As you can see, from my own admission, I believe we're in better hands with Obama than McCain. But we must wait.
The question then is: what makes for a good leader in a time of crisis?

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is from a Yahoo article.. maybe to answer you question in the opposite... here is what makes a bad Congress. Don't like the result.. BUY THE VOTES!

they've begun rounding up votes the old-fashioned way.

They're buying them.

A revised bailout bill includes tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the middle class, for homeowners who don't itemize their deductions, and for property owners in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

Add on the $3 billion funding dollop for rural school programs over the next five years. And another $8 billion over the same period in disaster aid, much of it for Midwestern states. And toss in unrelated legislation, far-reaching in its own right, requiring insurance plans to provide better benefits for mental health.
Robert Cornwall said…
To be fair to Congress, this is the way things have been done since the beginning. To get a necessary, but unpopular, bill passed you put in sweeteners. What's important to note here is that these sweeteners are designed to entice recalcitrant Republicans, and could lose Democrats.
Anonymous said…
Part of the sweetener is that they are adding this to another bill that is likely to get passed anyway. That's part of the due process.

And the bit about being a maverick. that's not really a good thing. We have a maverick as president right now who was literally laughed at at the UN. Mavericks make us look undiplomatic and stupid as our current maverick has done for eight years.

Having a person who can think for himself and make measured and sound critical judgments is a totally different thing.
Anonymous said…
Seriously.. you guys are using another word "sweetners" (which is ripped from a media.. think about that for a second- media just influenced your vocabulary and reason). Substitute the word BRIBE and you get a better idea of what you are arguing.

What's important to note here is that these BRIBES are designed to entice recalcitrant Republicans

Part of the BRIDE is that they are adding this to another bill that is likely to get passed anyway. That's part of the due process

I am argue they are all crooks, Mavericks, slow to speak, fast to speak, or using critical judgment. The bottom line is that bribes are thrown in to buy votes... for something none of us know will work or if its even the best way to do this. We may look back and say.. wow, we should have spent more than a week researching before investing $750 BILLION. Makes the timetable for the Iraq war look like a well researched thesis.
Anonymous said…
Sorry.. forgot this line.. which is probably the best one..

To get a necessary, but unpopular, bill passed you put in BRIBES.
Robert Cornwall said…
Note for whom the "sweeteners"/Bribes are intended. They're intended to gain the support of "Principaled" conservative Republicans.

I'm not saying its the right thing to do, but this is how unpopular but necessary bills get passed. Call it pork if you will, earmarks if you must, but politics involves a bit of horse trading!

Popular Posts