If the President sets the wrong tone, bureaucratic performance can undermine the presidency.
President Obama ignited a fuse to the one thing that can do more damage to him and his legacy than scandal-seeking Republicans. In a New Yorker article by Margaret Talbot yesterday titled “Obama vs the Press” the damage is done.
Actually, the article records the damage that was done by President Obama’s management approach that she characterizes as “attitude.” If President Obama looks the other way or fails to attend to details, some interpret that to meaning do what you have to do. If you get caught, I will tell people the first time I heard about was on CNN.
I wrote a book in 2011 that was published as a series of articles at usedview.com titled How to Select an American President (c)2011 James A. George, All Rights Reserved. The purpose was to produce advice based on analysis of the past president’s resumes to consider their qualifications.
In the book I referred to a description of the 3 parts to Reagan’s genius as reported by brietbart.com and paraphrased here:
“1. He was a visionary; he believed that people wanted freedom and would do well when more of it was given to them. He knew where he wanted to go and how he wanted to get there.
2. Reagan had character, and in the eyes of America’s Founders, character was a necessary ingredient for greatness. Reagan stood for a set of ideas, and when trouble came he looked not to polls, but instead he applied courage, kindness, and persistence to achieve his ends. Reagan changed the world and had done so with candor and honesty, as Sam Donaldson once said.
3. Reagan was teachable. That trait was essential. He was ready to modify.”
In another book that I wrote that was published by Wiley in 2010 titled Smart Data, Enterprise Performance Optimization Strategy, I used President Obama as a case study to address his management approach. Lacking CEO experience, he was not specific about expected outcomes. You could not nail him down about how things would be accomplished. The conclusion was that people would be confused about what was to be accomplished and would not know how to accomplish it.
Again, the outcome for President Obama would be plausible deniability.
Margaret Talbot addresses the President’s “attitude—toward leaks, toward the press, and toward what can be justified in the name of national security”
“This isn’t a matter of tracking down an order Obama gave. He certainly played no role in egging on those overeager I.R.S. employees in Cincinnati. He apparently did not know about the subpoenas of more than a hundred A.P. reporters’ phone records, a fishing expedition to find the government source who might have leaked information about a thwarted plot to bomb an airliner. But it could be a matter of attitude—toward leaks, toward the press, and toward what can be justified in the name of national security—that sifts down from the top. As reporters like Steve Coll and Jane Mayer have shown, this is an Administration that is uncommonly touchy about government officials who leak to the press, even as, like all governments, it engages in strategic or self-aggrandizing leaks on a regular basis. Under Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, there have been six prosecutions for leaks—more than under any previous Administration. (Some were carry-overs from the Bush era, and Holder has boasted about his aggressiveness on this front to Republicans in Congress who have complained about breaches in national security.) These prosecutions increasingly rely on the Espionage Act, a First World War-era piece of legislation that, as Emily Bazelon points out in Slate this week, was never meant to target journalists or even their sources.”