Obama: Carter 2.0
Of all the many, many disturbing facts we learned about Barack Obama during last year's campaign, the one I personally found most disquieting was not the problematic associations with various leftists and loons (though they were certainly bad enough) but the complete and utter absence of any testimonials to Obama's leadership and management ability. Normally, a party's nominating convention features a parade of speakers to the microphone testifying to the nominee's ability to get things done. "I vividly recall the day we were on our way to a campaign event, and he ordered the car stopped and personally organized the rescue of an old lady's cat from a tree," somebody would say. More seriously, the talk would be of bills passed, initiatives taken, lives improved, etc. But last year's Denver convention featured none of that. No one so much as testified that he had successfully led a Boy Scout troop on an overnight hike.
This yawning gap in his resume has not gone unnoticed overseas. Nicolas Sarkozy was unimpressed with The One after their first meeting, pointedly noting afterward (in comments deliberately leaked to the press) that Obama had never so much as managed a ministry. One can only imagine what Vladimir Putin thinks.
That's what came to mind when I read the front page story last week in the Wall Street Journal on Obama's management style. The story, which drew remarkably little attention, wasn't exactly devastating, but believe me, no president wants to be described in any headline as a "micromanager." The name "Jimmy Carter" - he of rearranging the schedules for the White House tennis courts - was invoked several times. While the story did reveal some positive aspects of Obama's style, demanding that his aides get outside their comfort zone and become familiar with other points of view, for instance, the overall portrait was not flattering. He is delving into the details of childhood obesity, loan-to-value ratios and the complexities of regulating credit default swaps. A clearly concerned Paul Volcker is quoted as asking aide Jared Bernstein after a meeting why Obama was concerning himself with the minutiae of such issues. "That's what he wants," Bernstein shrugged.
Micromanagement, of course, is evidence of an inexperienced executive seeking to compensate by ingesting vast quantities of detail. It also tells subordinates that their boss does not trust them to do their jobs, leading to alienation and disengagement.
The historical precedents are not encouraging. Our best 20th century presidents were not micromanagers. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were famous for their ability to delegate. (And were criticized for supposedly being disengaged.) Occasionally, this got them into trouble. (Think Iran-Contra.) But micromanagers, notably Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, ended badly. Woodrow Wilson started out well, but devolved into a micromanager of the worst sort, infamously concerning himself with the details of the operations of the Chinese railroad police and the governance of Eastern European satrapies. (This transformation, I suspect, was largely the doing of Edith Bolling Galt, the rich widow he married in 1915. Jealous of anyone who got between her and her husband, she convinced Wilson that his appointees were working against his interests and couldn't be trusted. So he tried to do it all himself. The overwork, of course, drove him to a crippling stroke.)
It's very early, of course, and if the economy recovers smartly, Obama will be perceived a genius and his micromanagement won't matter. But the president has gone from being a self-confessed failure at his chosen profession of community organizing to the toughest executive position in the world. For all our sakes, we must hope he can learn on the job.