Presidential leadership a thing of the past
I recently decided to read a book that has been sitting on my night table for quite a while, “Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989” by noted presidential historian Michael Beschloss. Published in 2007, it’s definitely worth reading at this time and remembering that the true test of leadership is how well you function in a crisis. The book makes it very clear that during crucial times in our nation’s history we have had a number of presidents who proved to be, in Andrew Jackson’s words, “born for the storm.”
As I read the book’s preface I realized that I was going to find the comparison of our current president and those that Beschloss writes about incredibly disconcerting. The first line of the preface reads: “This book shows how American presidents have, at crucial moments, made courageous decisions for the national interest although they knew they might be jeopardizing their careers.” And the last line reads: “Recalling how some of our presidents past struggled to make vital decisions that ultimately proved to be both wise and courageous should inspire us always to expect more.”
I became increasingly sad as I read about president after president, beginning with George Washington, acting not based on “personal local and partial consideration” but instead on “permanent interests of our country” and “dictates of my conscience.” Washington is quoted as becoming incensed when his Secretary of State Edmund Randolph charged that Washington’s “final decision” to sign the Jay Treaty was the result of “party advice.” For President
Washington being called a partisan was almost the worst insult. And John Adams, our nation’s second president, insisted that “popularity was never my mistress.”
Abraham Lincoln was “a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any natural crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
Teddy Roosevelt felt that great presidents were those who took “noble risk.” The politician who cared “only for his own success” was a “curse.” Franklin D. Roosevelt, TR’s fifth cousin, also recognized that the president’s job is not to follow public opinion, but to lead it. Had he been a captive of public opinion, he would not have pressed for aid to Britain when running for reelection in 1940 when public sentiment was strongly opposed to our entering World War II.
Likewise, Harry Truman took a similar view. He indicated that the ultimate test of any presidential decision was “not whether it’s popular at the time, but whether it’s right…. If it’s right, make it, and let the popular part take care of itself.” John F. Kennedy made a similar point in his Pulitzer prizewinning book, “Profiles in Courage,” when he wrote about leaders who “sailed with the wind until the decisive moment when their conscience, and events, propelled them into the center of the storm.”
In the book’s epilogue entitled “Presidential Courage,” Beschloss writes that, based on his reading of history, John Kennedy “feared that the changing political environment was making it more difficult for Americans to practice the kind of leadership that had shaped our past.”
I came away from reading “Presidential Courage” with a sense of awe at the many wise and courageous decisions our nation’s presidents of both political parties have made over the years. Many of our presidents have put our nation’s interest over their party’s interest, re-election and their own egos. Often, especially during a crisis, their primary motivation was what they perceived as best for the nation.
It struck me that the reason I find the current president’s performance so appalling is because of the high standards set by a number of our exemplary presidents in times of crisis. They have inspired us to expect our presidents to show courage during difficult times. President Trump’s performance during the coronavirus crisis has not come close to meeting the standards of wisdom, courage and selflessness set by Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
His performance during the pandemic has been dreadful and is far worse than I ever could have imagined. Instead of addressing the issue he punted and according to The New York Times “shifted responsibility for leading the fight against the pandemic from the White House to the state states. They [Trump’s staff] referred to this as ‘state authority handoff,’ and it was at the heart of what would become at once a catastrophic
policy blunder and attempt to escape blame for the crisis that engulfed the country – perhaps one of the greatest failures of presidential leadership in a generation.”
I, like many other pundits, bought into the notion that the Republican Party and our political institutions would preclude President Trump from doing the kind of damage he has done during this crisis. I was wrong. In crisis management, it’s imperative that you make clear from the outset that facts will dictate your actions and that you will refrain
from blaming others. President Trump is unable, based on deepseeded character flaws, to take responsibility for his actions and lacks the self-discipline and decision-making skills to lead. He is totally and unequivocally unfit to serve as President of the United States.
America desperately needs national leadership to once and for all call everyone into a crisis mood and do whatever is necessary to dramatically reduce the COVID-19 infection rate. The future of America depends on our replacing our failed President.