No Negotiation

Last year at this time, President Obama spent several sessions with John Boehner in an attempt to negotiate a raise in the debt ceiling, a raise in taxes, and a measured cut in Federal spending.  Obama referred to this as the “balanced approach”.  The result was a stalemate in which both parties agreed to budget sequestration and automatic cancellation of the Bush-era tax cuts.  The hope for both parties was that they would gain the majority of power in November 2012 and make the necessary corrections afterward.

Throughout the months following this temporary resolution, Republicans repeatedly chastised the President for what they termed “failure to lead”.  Leadership is defined by the U.S. Army as, “Influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation, while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.”  Did the President fail to lead?  This is my assessment:

Influencing people.  Grade A.  Obama is highly influential, and this is the trait that scares Republicans.  He is popular, and knows how to play to the public. 

Providing purpose.  Grade C.  The trouble here is that our government is divided specifically to argue about its purpose.

Providing direction.  Grade A.  The offer of a balanced approach to the budget was a clear and sensible direction.

Providing motivation.  Grade C.  The only motivation in today’s politics is to act in accordance to one’s constituency.

Accomplishing the mission.  Grade C.  The mission of reducing the annual deficit has been clear, but only slightly improved.

Improving the organization.  Grade D.  The deficit and the economy improved slightly, but dysfunction in congress is at a peak.

With a grade average of C+, it is arguable that Obama was barely passing as a leader when he won the 2012 election, which leaves room for improvement.  So, how much improvement did we get?

A year after the last budget crisis, not much.  Instead of coming to the table, Obama simply said “I am not going to negotiate”, consequently maintaining a stand-off.  The hope is that the other party will flinch and the prevailing party will secure a huge political victory.  I am convinced that is not going to happen.  This is not leadership.

Something has to give, and it has to come from the President.  An influential leader would not let another day pass without bringing the opponent to the table.  A purposeful leader would set his terms for negotiation and confidently wait for a reply.  A directional leader would set clear goals for the negotiation and invite the opponent to meet his challenge.  A motivational leader would offer a win-win, the very thing needed to move our country forward and save face.  This would accomplish the mission.  This would improve the organization.  This is leadership.

The Republican party has demonstrated that they are fractured and poorly lead. The Tea Party continues to push for breakdowns of Obama Care while moderates such as John McCain clearly admit it cannot be done.  Boehner gave up the ship last year when he admitted he could not align the party.  Leadership is needed in this country, and it is not likely to come from the right.  The President is the best man for the job.  In fact, this is his job.  Negotiate, Mr. President, negotiate.

Tony F.

2013