Leading America after January 20, 2009

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the kind of leadership America will need come January, 2009, given the challenges of cleaning up the Bush mess, coping with the nation’s deferred needs, and gaining public support for paying for what needs to be done. The Dem debate last night prompts me to put my thoughts down.

Neither of the two dominant models of presidential leadership we’ve had in recent years will suffice. Under the first model, presidents lead by finding the putative “center.” Their pollsters try to discover what the public wants, and the president fashions policies that will be most popular. This was Bill Clinton’s model, especially after the stunning Democratic defeats of 1994, when he turned much of the apparatus of policymaking over to Dick Morris. But leading by polling isn’t leading; it’s pandering. Most of the public doesn’t know exactly what it wants because it hasn’t had the time to find out. Its so-called “opinions” typically reflect no more than what it’s heard from the last opinionated columnist or talk-show host they’ve encountered. At this perilous juncture in America’s history – where widening inequality, a bellicose foreign policy, and global warming all threaten – the next president dare not lead by polling.

Under the second model, presidents decide what’s good for America and then try to sell, cajole, intimidate, or lie their way toward that goal. George W. Bush hasn’t waivered in any of his beliefs, all the evidence to the contrary – including his certainty that supply-side tax cuts for the rich help the economy and that invading Iraq would bring peace to the Middle East. But leading by fiat isn’t leading, either; it’s bullying. It’s also profoundly anti-democratic. Worse yet, it leads to large errors because a president who’s dogged in pursuit of his goals is often incapable of hearing evidence that reveals those beliefs to be mistaken, as Bush has shown. If the next president chooses this model of leadership, he or she subjects the nation to grave danger.

But the choice need not be pandering or bullying – trying to please everyone or refusing to consider contrary opinion. The leadership we’ll need from the next president will require something different: a clear vision and a capacity to make his or her case to the public as strongly as possible, but then to listen carefully to what the public and its representatives say in response. In other words, the next president must be bold but also be willing to modify if facts and conditions change. Be clear about where he or she wants to lead America, but reconsider if the public will not follow. Come down hard on adversaries but not mistake disagreement for ruthless opposition. In short, he or she will have to enter into a dialogue with America – educating the public, but being willing to be educated in return. That’s the only way to preserve and build trust in leadership. And given the difficult hand the next president will be dealt – following the mess of Bush, and the mounting problems of the nation – public trust will be critical.

The question is: Which candidate seems to best embody this third model of leadership?