A leader exercising his leadership prerogatives, is best reminded of Charles De Gaulle's concept that there can be no power without mystery. In the same vein. there must "always be something which others can not altogether fathom, which puzzles them, stirs them, and rivets their attention." Obama can learn a thing or two from Charles De Gaulle; however much he likes to be regarded as a true leader, Obama has lost much of his authority simply because he allows himself to be too easily accessible, too openly engaging, too loquacious for his own good, and too voracious for attention. Again, De Gaulle on the subject of power:..."nothing more enhances authority than silence. It is the virtue of the strong, the modesty of the proud, and the prudence of the wise."
American presidents are not required to be "leaders" of the people. They are the ultimate SERVANT of the people, given tiny powers and big duties. However, good presidents DO become leaders, for they are given the platform upon which to speak, and at that point, whether they 'lead' or just try to "direct" comes obvious.
Presidents are not there to "run the country" or the world or anything else so grand. The Constitution gives them a level of discretion and authority for specific matters, and as such they are empowered to carry them out, but in all things, the people are superior to the president, and he owes all of the, whether thy voted for him or not, every respect you would give your boss.
As such, Obama is a failure, as he believes himself and his notions superior to that of the people, of the nation's founding, and of the nation's character, and his intent to remake it into HIS image of what it should be is a travesty to the presidency and treasonous to the Constitution.
I wish the POTUS would take a stronger stand on issues. At least Bush did that, even when he was wrong. lol
I think he sees that nobody has been clearing the underbrush for the last four decades and is trying not to light the fire.
If you actually thought that was true, you could point to actions taken to accomplish such. As it is, Obama's actions never apply to cleaning up government, they apply to taking up more authority and control over other things, as if "wrong" were a failure by government to be in charge and make the decisions.
If there's any "underbrush" that needs cleaning, it would be the GOVERNMENT itself, which has millions of employees, mostly engaged in entirely non productive work. If he were a real CEO, the first thing he'd do is have a fire, a bonfire, where the millions and millions of pages of federal laws and rules and regulations would be wholesale cleared away, and replaced with either nothing, or with small, prudent, appropriate measures.
He promised transparency. If he were to hide behind a curtain of mystery he would be even more roundly criticized by his detractors than he is.
Don't forget, too, that DeGaulle was president of France in the 1960s. There simply wasn't the instantaneous nature of media access to leaders (President Kennedy comes to mind) then that there is now.
By the way, I think President Obama is very good at maintaining silence when necessary. It's called biting his tongue -- which he has to do often when confronted with nitwit, irrational, obfuscating congresspeople.
This president is the least transparent of any president till now, not by small potatoes, by by huge measures. His entire past is hidden, his credentials for things is hidden, and his government is the least open to sunlight of ANY, so far.
And don't whine about the GOP, we're not talking about them. The point being that Obama HAS to be opaque and deceptive, because you would NEVER go along with him, if he were honest about his goals.
I could have sworn you were talking about Bush/Cheney there.
Given the POTUS' limited actual powers, any discussion of his effectiveness must, by definition, include the legislative branch of the government, which does.
How can you state that I would never go along with Obama if he were honest about his goals?
That statement is incorrect on two fronts, as it presupposes that
a)YOU know what his true goals are (how can that be if he is so opaque and deceptive? you are the only one who can see through the opacity?)
b) You know what is in my head and heart and what I will or will not go along with. I find that a supremely arrogant statement, sir.
Get over yourself.
The unstated purpose of my initial post , was to instigate a discussion on what makes for an 'effective leader. Obama''s style and substance just do not fit my idea of what an effective leader should be... mysterious, yet simply congrous; unfathomable yet easily discernible; puzzling yet sufficiently convincing; stirring yet preternaturally calming; riveting yet mordantly restoring.
Are you saying that that is your definition of what an effective leader should be? Or are you saying that that is what Obama IS and that is why he is not effective?
I hope you realize my post above was NOT directed at you!
An effective leader should be one who could verbalize in simple and clear terms (sans the rhetorical flair that Obama is known for) his vision of where he wants to lead the country. He talks and walks socialist but denies he is a socialist.... thus the confusion and resistance of people who are extremely mindful of the direction he is taking the country to. He hides behind rapturous peroration of his vision, but a vision that is not shared by a great proportion of the American people.
I do realize that your post was not directed at me...and even if it was, I would not take offense, because I always welcome dissent so long as they are well reasoned and well ... seasoned.
by NewRepublican7 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keMBascrkm0People gave Bush sht about tap dancing in front of the White House while we were in Iraq. Obama spending this much time on his bracket and coming out on tv to discuss it...
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
Obama and his leftist ideology, coupled by sheer incompetence has come back to haunt/daunt him and bite him in so many places, that people are wondering if his Presidency would ever recover from the myriad...
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
In a rather desperate effort to divert the gaze of the American people away from the wreck that is his presidency, Obama, in conjunction with his press secretary, has started to call the various scandals that have...
by girly_girl097 years ago
Back in the 60's:"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -President John F. KennedyToday:"What is the President trying to tell...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
From the time of President Obama's inception in the White House, it was his intention to change America into a "newer" version of America. He felt that that America as it was not in incongruence with...
by ahorseback10 months ago
Is it really true that President Obama has never visited the Normandy celebration of WWII ? Of the six times that An American president has NOT been to Normandy on the celebration day , all 6 of...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.