"We want you to lead, not as a liberal or a
conservative, but as president of the United States of America," said John Boehner, R-Ohio,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, the
day following Barack Obama’s reelection as President. "We want you to succeed. Let's challenge ourselves to find the
common ground that has eluded us. Let's rise above the dysfunction and do the
right thing together for our country."
I don’t know whether Boehner
was being truly honest in his remarks as, in the same breathe, he expressly
opposed a key Obama campaign pledge that would allow the Bush tax cuts to
expire, and the tax rates in place during the Clinton years to apply, with
respect to those Americans making more than $250,000 per year. But I concur with Boehner’s expressed sentiments.
I voted for President Obama
this Tuesday and contributed to his campaign, as I had done in 2008. I am extremely pleased that he won
reelection. But I want him to adopt a
somewhat different leadership style this time around. I want him to lead openly, forcefully and
directly, reaching compromises when they serve the national interest.
In his first term, President
Obama too often sought to stay above the fray, letting Democratic leaders in
the House and Senate do battle with Republican leaders to hash out the
particulars of various bills and public policies. This was true during the battle over the
stimulus bill early in the President’s term, equally true during the fight over
the Affordable Care Act, and repeated again during the pitched battle over
increasing the debt ceiling. President
Obama had spoken favorably during the 2008 presidential campaign of former
President Ronald Reagan’s approach to leadership by which he remained above the
fray, stepping forward nearer the end to embrace a particular policy or piece
of legislation. And, indeed, Obama
adopted this same approach. In my view,
it was and continues to be a failure.
I believe that had Obama
openly led the fight over healthcare reform from the outset rather than let
Nancy Pelosi and others do much of the heavy lifting and fighting in the
trenches, Obama would have been required to explain its terms far more clearly
to the American people than was the case, and the enormous opposition to it might
well not have materialized the way it did.
Instead, most Americans, myself included, did not understand the funding
or other aspects and ramifications of Obama Care. Many remain confused by its terms to this
day. I think Obama could have better
promoted his stimulus bill at the outset of his presidency had he been in the
lead using the bully pulpit at the time
he was seeking its passage. And I
believe that the fight over raising the national debt ceiling might have been
less harmful to the nation had Obama been more visible during the conflict.
Obama was more visible in
some instances involving domestic policy during his first term, such as the
auto bailout, his executive order assisting young immigrants who were brought
illegally into this country as children, and his change in position on same-sex
marriage, and he benefited greatly from having adopted these policies. As well, he was very active in providing
leadership and very visible in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and that served
him well, as it did those deeply affected by the storm.
If President Obama is going
to have a successful second term, he must abandon his “above the fray” approach
and provide open and direct leadership from the outset on major policy and
political issues, domestic and international, including addressing what is now
being called “avoiding the fiscal cliff.”
Abandoning his old style won’t be easy, as it seems to comport with his
nature and personality.
Indeed, I was a bit
concerned to hear the President say that he looked forward to working with both
political parties, in his remarks on Election Night. Mr. President, you are the head of one of
those parties! Yes, you should and will
need to work with the leaders, and rank and file, of your own political party.
But his choice of language, reminiscent of his comments during his first term,
suggests that he is above the parties and their conflicts. He is not!
He heads the Democratic Party and must lead it and the nation.
Nor will abandoning this
“above the fray” approach assure a successful second term. It won’t.
But, in my view, if he fails to step forward and provide more robust
leadership now, he will not succeed in his second term.
