The title is a little hard hitting, but what of the idea that Mr. Obama is the worst president in our countries history? I generally give that title to Mr. Carter for his numerous bunglings of the economy, Iranian hostage situation, etc. Maybe Nixon could be on that list for his crookedness while in office. Questions to ponder, for sure.
Below is an excerpt from an article written R. Emmett Tyrrell, a columnist for The Washington Times, that explores that very subject.
It is becoming apparent for all to see that a man who made his name as a community organizer does not have the skills to be president of these United States. Maybe he could develop the requisite skills as a governor. Possibly he could develop such skills were he to sit in the Senate for a couple of terms. Yet there are delicate sensitivities, the ability to listen, to stick by your guns, occasionally to remain reticent. These are the fundamentals of a leader, and President Obama has demonstrated that he lacks all of them, most notably reticence. I think it is clear even to official Washington that Mr. Obama is the worst president of modern times. President Jimmy Carter is redeemed.
Indeed, Jimmy Carter is redeemed. Mr. Tyrrell goes on to make the case that Mr. Obama seems to insert himself into silly controversies based not on being prudent (i.e. Professor Henry Gates, ala “The Beer Summit”), but rather impulsive in nature.
There is a solid reason that we usually seek individuals who have proven themselves in an executive role first. In a governmental position, this usually means a gubernatorial role (Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon…) At the least, the person needs to have some kind of experience managing an organization and a large group of people. Obama does not have that quality and we are getting what we deserve by electing such an individual. Heck, he barely had any experience in the Senate (hardly a training ground for executives.)
Those on the other side are quick to point out that he has helped pass comprehensive health care legislation, ended the war in Iraq and has attempted to “fix” the errors of the Bush Administration. Right. While I was not an enthusiastic fan of President Bush, I think he had a much better grasp on how to govern than Mr. Obama. This has nothing to do with his politics, but rather the way he attempts to manage people.
Let’s bring this down to a level all of us could understand. Not all corporations are run equally. Some are good and some are bad, management wise. Well run companies and corporations have a chain of command where the executive hires individuals to serve under them (i.e. Vice Presidents) and then there are people under those individuals that do specific jobs and so on and so forth. This is a top down structure that allows the employees to do their jobs and report to a specific boss. The CEO or President answers to a board that is entrusted to make sure things don’t go awry.
Then there are the micromanagement firms. These firms usually include a dynamic individual that feels compelled to insert themselves into all areas of the operation. This may sound like a great way to gain the trust of the employees, but in reality, it hinders and stifles productivity and creative behaviors. People start to wonder who is the boss. It is terribly inefficient. Eventually this type of corporation will wither due to distrust of the employees and paranoia of the chief executive. Eventually the corporation crumbles under the ineffective management. The smart boards will fire the chief executive and try to repair the damage caused before the company ceases to exist.
I have had experience with both types of organizations (I’ve actually seen both types happen within the same company.) The first is more appropriate for a large organization. Hire the best people and let them do their job. Ronald Reagan used to say about the Soviets, “Trust but verify.” A great mantra to live by in any corporate or governmental environment.
Mr. Obama has a problem with his management skills. He’s a very good and charismatic speaker, but that quality does not lead to a good leader.
Mr. Tyrrell ended his article with these lines:
Increasingly, it is clear that the Democrats brought down on the country a community organizer as president. Maybe in the future they will consider experience a qualification for the presidency. Possibly, the age of charisma is behind us. Possibly, Mr. Obama even lacks that dubious quality.
Of course, this is just my opinion.