Giving up being liked is the ultimate public sacrifice.
Here is more, interesting throughout. Shakespeare, in his Henriad, understood that citizens do not allow their leaders to be nice, reasonable, likable guys who admit when they are wrong. I am still glad — for eggheady, "merit good," and self-aggrandizing of my own relative status reasons — that Obama is trying to be reasonable, but I am not naive as to what lies at the end of the process.
Nice article. My favorite line:
“Bush’s contempt for the media meant he never stayed long enough to bore us.”
What Obama’s just starting to learn (on the U.S. taxpayers’ sufferance, unfortunately) is the lesson that every manager above junior-grade has learned: it’s not your job to be liked by your peers, your subordinates or your counterparts in other corporations. It’s your job to get the mission(s) done. There are usually casualties along the way, and I disagree with Kathleen Parker when she says wanting to be liked is not a character flaw. It most definitely is a character flaw in virtually any position of leadership.
If you’re effective, you will make enemies. Get used to it, and get on with it.
“Shakespeare, in his Henriad, understood that citizens do not allow their leaders to be nice, reasonable, likable guys who admit when they are wrong.”
True–but though Shakespeare may have read Machiavelli, he didn’t quite get him right. As Machiavelli astutely argued, it’s usually better to look like a “nice reasonable likeable guy,” but it would be a major mistake to consider this appearance to guide one’s actual application of pressure, terror, intimidation and fear on real political rivals.
Obama has been consistently, thoroughly underestimated as a political naif, yet just as consistently and thoroughly emerges eventually as the one of nuance, stature, and maturity–not to mention popularity. Beltway “Villagers” like Kathleen Parker have been the ones most egregiously and seriously prone to the underestimation. Right now the stridency and immaturity of the GOP is his perfect foil. She would have him be a political street fighter; he’s a boxer.
“Obama has been consistently, thoroughly underestimated as a political naif, yet just as consistently and thoroughly emerges eventually as the one of nuance, stature, and maturity….”
Nuance, stature and maturity are, then, clearly in the eyes of the beholder. I did not see it in Bush. I do not see it in Obama. They are not alike, but neither share these qualities. His cabinet picks and defenses alone are enough to dash thoughts otherwise.
I think that those making these arguments about Obama are
falling into an easy trap. As noted in one of the comments,
it is very Machiavellian (and effective) to make oneself
look all reasonable and nice. Note that the public currently
says by an overwhelming margin that Obama has been far more
reasonable in the negotations over the stimulus package than
his GOP foes in the Congress, even if the public is less sure
that his proposal is actually worthwhile. There are several
gone, former Dem candidates for president who thought that
the could roll this “too reasonable” guy with their toughness.
He has already shown that he has no problem with dumping people
who are a problem or stabbing somebody in the back who is causing
too much trouble, with few noticing that he has done so.
A piece of punditry with no evidence seems less than “interesting throughout” to me. Whether or not his strategy works out, I think it’s clear that President Obama is calculating carefully, based on his political experience. I don’t believe that his motivation is a desire to be liked so much as the recognition that you need broad investment to make never before tested policies work (if they can at all), and so citizens and Republicans are going to have to be on board. The apology was a way to distinguish himself from his predecessor and get on to a new issue, as well as a display of the integrity and maturity Parker claims she is looking for.
“When I heard Obama apologize.”
HE said “I screwed up”. That’s an admission of error, not an apology.
Well, he doesn’t appear reasonable to me, nor nice.
And I would dislike him all the more if I thought he was simply appearing to be nice.
Being a nice guy may be the only thing Carter had going for him, but I have no illusions of holding mainstream opinions.
That’s not to say that everyone will like you, because a lot of A-holes have divergent agendas.
Private sector managers have a very limited scope of damage. If not the guy who wields the most destructive power on the planet, then who should be nice and reasonable? Ultimately, he either convinces you to do what’s in your best interest, or he threatens to kill you.
IIRC, Ronald Reagan was generally well-liked throughout his presidency.
@ImpeachObama, who wrote “Correction: Obama is trying to APPEAR reasonable. Megalomaniacs always cloak their titanic ambitions in reasonableness.”
Keep on saying stuff like that, ImpeachObama…it’s a big help for progressives and just plain vanilla liberals (in both old and new senses) like me. I shouldn’t be giving away the secret plans revealed only at MoveOn meetings, but it’s really important to keep provoking frustrated and intemperate right-wingers into silly exaggerations like this one.
Anyone who has paid any attention knows that President Obama is ambitious, tough, smart, and focused. As noted by other supporters above, he knows how to dump a liability, and how to roll tough politicians (ask Hilary). But that’s not megalomania, nor is it unethical or illegal. Just what do you propose to impeach Obama for, after all?
But I do recognize your type: I remember watching TV in Southern California on election night, 1992, when the crowd behind the podium at the California Republican party headquarters was waving (carefully prepared) “Impeach Clinton” signs…in November!
The suggestion that Obama is afraid to make enemies is absurd on its face. His polling on the economy is really good. People see him as reasonable, and a bill very much like his original proposal is poised to pass out of Congress. This is a significant accomplishment, hardly the work of a naive lightweight.
Why do we care about politics at all? Why don’t we just lay low and live our own lives, making as much money as possible, travel as much as possible, and meet as many of the opposite sex as possible, trying to find a balance between the three.
@nelsonal: see the post “FISA, Joker the Terrorist, and the State of Exception: Sorting out The Dark Knight’s Murky Politics” on the interesting blog Weaponized Culture. (Watch out for spoilers.)
I mostly agree. It’s been a while since I saw it, but I thought Batman was presented as a cautionary tale as much as a sympathetic figure. Rachel Dawson thinks he won’t be able to stop after the current crisis of lawlessness is over.
Comments on this entry are closed.