The Weakness in the White house

[Vadatajs]

Article

There is universal agreement that Bush likes to think at the level of the "big picture," as his former press secretary Ari Fleischer has said. He is not disposed to concern himself with how that picture is filled in -- the policies and their implementation that put a vision into effect. Bush leaves those to his subordinates. It is not even clear that his vision goes beyond such vague wishes encapsulated in catch-phrases like "winning the war on terror," "no child left behind" and "bringing democracy to the Middle East."

The problem with thinking only at the level of the big picture is that the vision is fulfilled or not in the operations. An effective president needs to think big, but also has to be the chief operating officer. The president must at least know enough about the operations to assess how the vision is materializing if, indeed, it is. Otherwise subordinates will go their own ways, checked only by their bureaucratic opponents. A president who is dismissive of operations relies solely on advisors for assessment of policy outcomes. If they are at odds with each other or are visionaries themselves -- as the neo-conservatives are -- the assessment function will fail, leading to ineffective policies.

The second element of Bush's leadership style upon which there is universal agreement is his pretense to be resolute, to stay the course that he has chosen and to dismiss opposition to it. Just as vision is a virtue if it is coupled with awareness of operations, resolve is essential to an effective executive if it is accompanied by planning for adverse contingencies and calculated adjustment in response to them. Effective resolve keeps major objectives constant, takes oppositional arguments into account and has carefully prepared contingency plans. None of the conditions for effective resolve seems to be present in the Bush presidency.

 

[Ldir]

The problem is Dubya's big picture is drawn in black and white. In crayon.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Article

There is universal agreement that Bush likes to think at the level of the "big picture," as his former press secretary Ari Fleischer has said. He is not disposed to concern himself with how that picture is filled in -- the policies and their implementation that put a vision into effect. Bush leaves those to his subordinates. It is not even clear that his vision goes beyond such vague wishes encapsulated in catch-phrases like "winning the war on terror," "no child left behind" and "bringing democracy to the Middle East."

The problem with thinking only at the level of the big picture is that the vision is fulfilled or not in the operations. An effective president needs to think big, but also has to be the chief operating officer. The president must at least know enough about the operations to assess how the vision is materializing if, indeed, it is. Otherwise subordinates will go their own ways, checked only by their bureaucratic opponents. A president who is dismissive of operations relies solely on advisors for assessment of policy outcomes. If they are at odds with each other or are visionaries themselves -- as the neo-conservatives are -- the assessment function will fail, leading to ineffective policies.

The second element of Bush's leadership style upon which there is universal agreement is his pretense to be resolute, to stay the course that he has chosen and to dismiss opposition to it. Just as vision is a virtue if it is coupled with awareness of operations, resolve is essential to an effective executive if it is accompanied by planning for adverse contingencies and calculated adjustment in response to them. Effective resolve keeps major objectives constant, takes oppositional arguments into account and has carefully prepared contingency plans. None of the conditions for effective resolve seems to be present in the Bush presidency.

GWB's management style reminds me of Reagan.

 

[Insane3D]

Good read, thanks. It lacked any of the typical left wing/right wing rhetoric, and was clear, concise, and to the point. This seems to be more rare every day in any article discussing politics. I especially like how they pointed out if Kerry was elected, that it was unclear how he would approach things, and his leadership style is generally unknown at this point. It would have been really easy, and wrong IMO, to say it would automatically be better than it is now if Kerry was elected.

Thanks.

 

[GrGr]

Another interesting aspect of Bush's style is that it has lead to vicious and damaging infighting between rivaling groups within the intelligence community. The outing of Plame and the "counterattack" on Chalabi are two examples of this.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Another interesting aspect of Bush's style is that it has lead to vicious and damaging infighting between rivaling groups within the intelligence community. The outing of Plame and the "counterattack" on Chalabi are two examples of this.

George could take some lessons, too, from his brother's State's Sunshine Laws. There have been way too many secretive meetings in this administration that have led to policy decisions. Too much scripting of meetings. Bush seems to mistake criticism of his ideas as betrayal.

I believe someone posted a thread recently about an article from a doctor who was presupposing as to Bush's mental state. IMO, there is no doubt Bush has some mental health issues and that is certainly affecting his presidency and, unfortunately, our nation and the world.