On Leadership

[H2O Man]

A few threads on the primary discussions have focused on Barack Obama’s charisma. These threads have included both positive and negative comments on Senator Obama’s ability to connect with democrats. Because some of the posts have included inaccurate or incomplete information on charismatic leadership, I thought it might be worth taking a minute to review a couple of related concepts. Some DUers may recall my writing about these topics before.

In all societies, groups of people have recognized that some individuals exercise leadership. "Leadership" is based upon power, a word we know comes from the Latin root "posse," or the "ability to do." The ideas of political power are most easily understood by the theories of Max Weber, who referred to it as "authority."

There are three basic types of authority: (1) Traditional authority, which is based upon the history of the group. Traditional authority is found in the early, pre-industrial societies, and Weber associated it with patriarchal societies. The Iroquois, a matriarchal culture, are also based on traditional authority. (2)Legal-rational societies are those where the power is found in the "state," meaning the laws of the complex political institution. These states include both democracies and totalitarian states. When we think of the power in a totalitarian state, three types come to mind: military, corporate, and religious. When we think of legal-rational power in a democratic state, we think of everything from the frustrations of impersonal bureaucracy to the potential for fair elections. (3) "Charisma" means "gift." Charismatic authority is the type we associate with a leader with outstanding personal characteristics. History has examples of very good and very bad "charismatic" (or "gifted") leaders.

The differences between the good or bad charismatic leaders can be most easily understood in terms how the message that they communicate to the public. Gifted leaders understand that people have a sense of "personal control." This is Rodin’s studies on health care focus on – the belief that a person has that they can make decisions which help them to produce desirable outcomes, and avoid undesirable ones. Let’s take a quick look at five types of control that help us in making healthy choices for our country: (1) Behavioral control: the actions we can take; (2) Cognitive control: our ability to think of various options; (3) Decisional control: we make choices; (4) Informational control: we can get our "facts" from Fox News or DU; and (5) Retrospective control: we can learn from history.

Now let’s look at another factor, that every doctor, nurse, social worker, and politician deals with. People have what is known as a "locus of control." That has to do with how each of us views our ability to take control of our lives. There are two types, though most people are a blend of both: (1) internal locus of control, meaning people who believe that they are responsible for making decisions which influence their lives; and (2) external locus of control, which describes those who believe they have no control over events, and are the victim of circumstances they are not responsible for.

Closely related to this is the sense of "self-efficacy," meaning our belief that we can succeed at those things we put our mind to, and invest time and energy to. We see this factor with people who take a positive approach to even the most difficult of challenges, and the lack of it in those who take a "stick-in-the-mud" approach to life.

Now, back to charismatic leadership: when we look at the two potentials – good versus bad – a pattern stands out. Those who have been good leaders attempt to appeal to the public’s sense that they can take actions to make positive changes in society, while those who are the bad leaders take the opposite approach – the "trust me to make all decisions for you" type.

When we think of the good charismatic leaders in our recent history, names like John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King come to mind. When we think of the negative examples, the names Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush come to mind. The first group asked people to become agents of positive change in their communities, and focus on the need to change things from the grass roots up. The second group ask people to believe that all meaningful power comes from distant sources, outside of their community.

In my opinion, the best of our democratic political leaders are attempting to move our country in the direction of being a Constitutional democracy. The republican leaders, on the other hand, seem to represent the power of the totalitarian state, with the military, corporate and religious influences denying citizens those rights we associate with the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

[Coexist]

1. in re: charisma,

Bill Clinton has it in spades.

I loved the Big Dog - so much so that I was willing to overlook the bullshit the right kept throwing at him. I was willing to hide my irritation that he couldn't keep his sex life under control for his term. Enough to spin his parsing, and triangulating, because I liked him, and the country was doing well.

I don't know if I can do it again. It pains me to say, but I will always love the charismatic Bill Clinton, but I won't defend him anymore. He has emptied that well.

I am hoping Barack Obama's charisma leads to good policy (as Clinton's did, with a few exceptions), and remains a force for good, something I won't have to turn to to get me past the bad stuff.

I don't mean this as a Clinton bash, but it is there, and I have been afraid to say it because of the vitriol on this board. But it worries me. Obama's charisma also worries me. My kids are in love with Obama, and I am hoping he doesn't turn them cynical and force them to spin for him, I hope they can always be proud of the spell they have fallen under, and never have to make excuses for him.

[H2O Man]

2. Interesting.

I've always preferred Hillary Clinton to Bill Clinton. I think that while she is not as charismatic as her husband, that she is far more liberal, and that she also has an understanding of the "legal-rational" power system that could allow her to accomplish far more than Bill. The comparisons are difficult, of course, because Bush2 has done far more severe damage to the foundation of our society than Bush1.

In the past month, we have seen some interesting aspects of Bill's appeal. His attacks on Barack Obama have, which is part of the Clinton campaign's using two traditional black leaders (King and Jackson), has reduced his popularity with many black Americans. As has been pointed out, for many years the audiences that have listened to Bill have included large numbers of black democrats; since his unfortunate statements, this has changed. More, the reports on his use of the "system" to reap large amounts of money, which involve business with uranium and Bush1, have the potential to further reduce Bill's charismatic appeal.

[bigtree]

3. Of course, this appeal could work against Obama

1. If he becomes too conciliatory and appears too willing to compromise on core principles or positions.

2. If he is so concerned with managing his standing in the campaign that he 'moderates' too much for the progressives who are supporting him (many reading his 'change' mantra as a change from what has been operational Democratic orthodoxy with the Super Delegate crowd in Washington. He isn't all that distanced from his peers and he's blended right in to the mainstream of the Democratic caucus as a Senator)

3. Something in his past or record which doesn't square with *his progressive posture, such as, the nuclear controversy which emerged today.

[H2O Man]

5. Interesting points.

The truth is that each of the top three candidates from both parties (Obama, Clinton, and McCain) all are politicians who work well with people from the opposing party. In each case, we can see that their accomplishments are always the result of working together with others.

On the republican right, there are those who rant about McCain being untrustworthy because he often works with democrats. It is fairly easy to see that they are extremists who are out of touch with the reality of politics in Washington.

Likewise, we have people in the democratic party who project their passionate dislike of republicans onto the primary. We read DUers who demand a candidate who will refuse to reach out to republicans. Though these may well be sincere democrats, they do not have a grasp on what the next democratic president will have to do to accomplish meaningful change.

Senator Clinton is being endorsed by RFK Jr. He is the most successful environmental attorney in the nation. His accomplishments have always been the result of being able to connect with both democrats and republicans. He makes this very clear in his books, and those who know him are fully aware that he has well-established connections to many republicans.

Martin Luther King, Jr worked towards healing society. He reached out to his opponents and to his enemies. Yet he did not compromise his values.

Both Obama and Clinton would be outstanding presidents, not because of a refusal to work towards reconcilliation that compromises their values, but for the exact opposite reason: both are solid enough in their belief systems that they are fully able to work with others -- including republicans -- and do so without compromising their values. We have two outstanding candidates.

[bigtree]

6. no doubt, they are fine candidates

but, they are also politicians who have similar experience in working through their respective political 'clubs', Obama in Illinois and Clinton in the Senate. The votes and ties weigh them down. Not so much that they are so irrevocably tainted by the political deals and moneychanging, but that neither can really assume a mantle of a 'change' agent without first reconciling the conciliations they made during their initiation into politics and during their advance with their appeal for progressive change. That's why, when some issue emerges which shows them with their feet in run-of-the-mill political muck, it's seized on as a major hypocrisy. I think Obama is more succeptible to this than Clinton. She has the veneer of the Chicago politicians from her birth state, in that most folks expect her politics to be sorted. 'Sorted' politics usually works to advance issues in Washington. There really is no ideal of comity or deference that Obama can expect if he comes to town to change things. He'll bend to the politics, just like Clinton instinctively will, but the reaction to that bending may come with a sense of betrayal from those who have regarded his 'change' mantra as a promise to govern in a progressive manner, rather than from the center. Hillary will come into office with a clearer understanding (from the public) of how she'll govern. Same old Democratic hammering. Incremental change and a reflexive rejection of overt republicanism.

that's enough from me . . . thanks for listening

[H2O Man]

7. Either one

will face a unique set of challenges, which include the fact that Bush-Cheney have done severe damage to our country, and that each has their unique personality make-up and history.

In some of the 2004 discussions, I recall saying that the Bush-Cheney administration had done things that had hurt us on both the domestic and international level which would take at least 20 years to repair. I think that is still an accurate view. The question today is which of these two leaders is most capable of beginning that process.

As democrats, we each have our own personal make-up and history that influences our choice of candidates. That can be a good thing. One thing is for sure: this is one heck of a primary season.

[TheDoorbellRang]

9. Interesting point that Clinton, Obama, and McCain

are all despised by some in their respective parties because they've worked with the "opposition." Their emergence on top would seem to say that the moderates in America are starting to recoil from the extreme rightism of the past years, and with some hope I think we'll see the pendulum starting to swing to the left again. The tricksey part for our candidates will be how much of the democratic agenda they can accomplish without compromising too much with the right. The ability to wheel and deal is an attribute that party purists disdain but which I think will be essential to the next president.

[H2O Man]

11. On other threads,

I've mentioned examples of grass roots community activism, because I think they can help us see how progress is made. I've worked on environmental issues, including Superfund Sites that threatened rural populations in upstate NY. The people in those neighborhoods included both democrats and republicans. And, as RFK Jr noted, the children in those neighborhoods were not members of either party. Should I have advocated for select families? Ignored the children who lived in homes with republican parents?

More, in dealing with Albany and Washington DC, I encountered both liberal and conservative people. One of the Department of Justice attorneys who was most helpful was pretty conservative. Should I have drawn a line, and refused to work with him?

In the summer of 2006, we had serious floods in several upstate counties. Two men lost their lives, a few miles away. Thousands of people went through a difficult period. My wife was part of the emergency response team for our county. In the first four days, we really didn't see much of her in our home. When she was here, she was on the phone, talking on the phone to get needed services to people. Most of our county is republican. My wife is a democrat. Would anyone benefit from a refusal of people to work together?

We face national issues as dangerous and severe as toxic waste dump sites and that are as threatening to our future as a flood.

[Coexist]

8. I agree

I was just discussing his (Clinton's) charisma, which was the driving force in his getting elected, to the aftermath.

I want Obama to win, for lots and lots of reasons. One of the reasons I don't want Hillary to win, is my Clinton Scandal fatigue. I guess I didn't make my point very well.

And Obama's wonderful, uplifting charisma has sucked my kids in, and I am a mom, and I worry about their being let down by a politician for the first time in their young lives - like how I got a bad taste in my mouth sometimes, by trying to stand up for the Clintons.

Yes, they have become a machine, and that, as well as their old school look to young voters, have left them cold.

In years past, they would just sit out and thumb their nose at government, but this time, Barack Obama has filled the void they felt about old fogies in Washington. They are moved and inspired the way Bill Clinton inspired me, after years of Reagan.

This post, like the previous one, is all over the road. I guess I can't figure out a way to say what I want. Sorry.

[H2O Man]

10. I think that

we are seeing some interesting things. There are a number of threads on DU that illustrate the ideas of external versus internal locus of control. For example, we see people posting things that say, "Obama talks about change, but I don't see it happening," or "prove to me that he can change things."

Those with an external locus of control tend to not believe in the power of ideas. And much of what Senator Obama is talking about is rooted in the power of ideas, and his belief that people can make coordinated efforts to change society. Those who do not believe that seem to reject the very promise of the progressive and liberal wing of the democratic party. Instead, they take the Eeyore approach to life, that concludes that nothing can really work, so let's not bother trying.

We also see intelligent people saying "prove to me" .... which I find troubling. As noted in the 4th form of "control," we have the ability to seek out -- for ourselves -- the needed information to deal with any important decision. The responsibility is our own -- not that of some other person, no matter if they agree or disagree with us.

It is when we willingly give up that responsibility to find information, and to evaluate it for ourselves with the confidence that it allows us the ability to make the correct decision (which is the Power of Ideas in action), we open the door to the wrong type of leadership making choices for us.

It is sad to see people who should welcome the energy and passion of the younger generation instead taking that Eeyore approach, which allows them to find something negative in every situation, and to see them posting insulting statements about college students.

The negative mindset is found in every post that attacks Robert Kennedy Jr or his sister Rory. We find this self-defeating nonsense on quite a few threads these days. Although these siblings are endorsing different candidates, both are advocates of grass roots activism, and both represent that strength of our party.

I'm still more encouraged by the quiet strength that so many DUers show in discussing the elections. They may not post as frequently as some of the Eeyores, but they are what is best about our party and our country.

[rosesaylavee]

4. K & R

[H2O Man]

12. Earlier today,

I saw George W. Bush on tv. He looked old and tired. I was happy to think that in less than a year, he will be out of Washington.

[DemReadingDU]

13. morning kick

I really can't decide who to vote in the primary. With Ohio's primary in March, I suppose the decision will be made by then. Both are fine candidates. The important thing is that the Democrat be elected to President in November in order to begin undoing the damage caused the the Republican administration.