Beer Summits and Leadership Failures

It was not far into President Obama's first term that I shook my head and thought, "Wow.  He's in way over his head.  He doesn't have basic leadership skills."  That defining moment was, for me, when he intervened in a rather uneventful incident:  the arrest of a Harvard University professor by name of Henry Louis Gates.  Gates, an African-American, immediately cried "Racism!" and pointed the finger at Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley.

Now, aside from the facts of the case -- and as a retired police lieutenant I have an opinion on those -- it is Obama's leadership issues during that incident that merit discussion. What struck me most about Obama's involvement in what would otherwise be nothing more than a blip on the over-worked radar screen of national events was that he, who would certainly have much larger issues to contend with, chose to dedicate time to that issue.  Dubbed promptly as a "beer summit," Obama took the time and initiative to contact Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley and to invite them to the White House for a personal meeting.

Rather than deal with race relations on a macro-scale, Obama elected to meet with the individuals involved and mediate what should have been handled solely on a local level.  Certainly I see what he was doing:  he wanted it to be symbolic.  I assume he saw himself as embodiment that old political strategy of using local issues to foment global change.  He wanted to craft his image as "the people's president."

Here's his leadership failure that has been borne out again and again, ad nauseum, through his presidency:  any good leader knows a leader is diminished by, not made greater by, brokering too-tiny personnel issues.  In policing in a large agency, any police chief who will skip the requisite levels of command to broker a personnel conflict between two employees, or a cop and a citizen, has made himself small and petty in the eyes of his people.  Here's why:

First, who's managing the shop when the chief (or president) is setting aside huge, global issues to resolve a small misunderstanding?  Second, what does that say of his faith in (and the responsibility given to) the multiple layers between him and those individuals?  It has the effect of undercutting his own authority while simultaneously undercutting that of the levels of command in between.  It is poor management strategy.

Many would-be leaders fail miserably by trying to be everyone's buddy.  The buddy-buddy approach to leadership is problematic.  I'm of the old school -- that there must be some sort of leadership mystique to be effective.  It goes beyond charisma and likability; in fact, it's more important than likability -- it's the ability to command respect.  Drill sergeants know this.  Winston Churchill knew this.  Heck, even Sonny Barger of the Hell's Angels knows this.

Obama, much to his detriment, has re-enacted that beer summit time and again.  In recent weeks, as the Middle East burned and persecution of and by various religious factions across the world has become a daily headline, Obama has spent his time on his "bear is loose" campaigns.  He has bypassed a sure and swift response to the downed Malaysian aircraft in favor of buying BBQ meals for citizen letter-writers and decrying the absence of cole slaw.  He has passed over enormous opportunities for strong and sure leadership in favor of shaking hands, kissing babies and resolving bite-sized, manageable issues.

This tactic has not only given Obama the appearance of being out of touch and of being out of his league, it has also diminished any respect he might have earned by true leadership.  Every leader of significance will eventually have "leadership moments" handed to him or her on a plate.  The wise and capable leader capitalizes on those moments for the good of their cause.  Obama has had hundreds such opportunities -- and has bypassed them all in favor of face-time with celebrities and average citizens.  In doing so, he may have won the hearts of Lionel Richie and Henry Louis Gates, but has disenfranchised those of us who expect a president to be -- well, presidential.  We want our leaders to be leaderly.  

What might Obama have done when such micro-situations come to his attention?  He might have jumped on the chance to unite, rather than to divide.  He might have distanced himself by stressing that he is, after all, the president -- and he does, surprisingly enough, have greater issues calling for his attention.  That would give the people confidence that he is indeed paying attention to those issues.  He might have made a single, compelling statement reiterating values or goals.  That would give people direction.  But no, he has repeatedly gotten involved in the local -- saving his statements for the death of Trayvon Martin or saving his phone calls for Tracy Morgan -- rather than addressing genocide or global turbulence.

Most appalling of all, Obama has chosen to foster race and class warfare.  He has encouraged resentment among classes, races, ethnicities and religion.  He chooses to divide and unsettle.  He might have, on countless occasions, taken advantage of the chance to say, "Hey, folks, not all misunderstandings involve racism.  None of us are perfect and we're going to make mistakes.  Let's first ask ourself what bearing our own actions had on the situation.  For God's sake, let's not tear ourselves apart as a nation because of these events."  A leader unites his or her people, if necessary even doing so against a common threat; he does not encourage divisiveness.

Police leaders know that undercutting the chain of command causes confusion and lack of confidence in their employees.  An officer shouldn't spend the shift worrying about which boss he has to answer to -- after all, we're all human and every boss will have a slightly different perspective.  Instead, the chain of command offers a single point of contact.  Obama muddies the waters with his cutting-in-line approach to leadership.

Strong, aloof leaders offer their own challenges.  They're not always popular.  This isn't high school, though, and the world stage is more important than the currently in-vogue popularity contests.  Effectiveness is critical.

Let's hope we see a future leader who avoids beer summits and shaking the hands of citizens in horse-head masks.  Let's hope our next president sees the big picture, not the vignette.  Let's hope he gains respect, not hugs, from the people.  Let's hope.

Rethinking Feminism

I'm a feminist.  Yes, even now.  Even seeing what today's feminism looks like -- and what today's feminist sounds like -- I remain committed to the concept of equal opportunity.

I can't ally myself with today's left-wing liberal feminism, though, and saying the word "feminist" out loud is enough to give me the cold shoulder from the conservatives I prefer to hang with.  What happened to the good-humored, compassionate, hard-working women who once made up the ranks of early feminism?  Who replaced them with the mean-spirited, hateful liberal feminists today who are empowered by a sense of schadenfreude every time they kick someone to the curb?

These days, the "cause" has gone from the belief that we need to work hard and prove ourselves capable of equal (or even superior) work to the belief that women are somehow entitled to be provided for by the machine.  Excuse me, but isn't that what we were trying to escape in the wonder years of the 70's and 80's, when we merely wanted the right to achieve equally?  And that achievement often meant being able to support ourselves free of a marriage; to work outside the home; to be free of the servitude that societal expectations attached to us.  Now, today's clamorous feminist wants to be carried by the establishment.  Rather than wanting freedom -- the freedom to have the opportunities this great country has promised -- today's feminist wants to limit the freedom of others.

How did women begin to think that "equal opportunity" meant "unequal advantage?"  Was it the idea of affirmative action?  Even at my most militant, younger days, I disagreed with affirmative action.  It opened the door to people of inferior ability to have jobs that should be held for those who are most capable.  Equal opportunity means a person of equal ability and capacity, equally skilled, should have equal ability to get that coveted job or to hold that distinguished career.  Unequal advantage means that the whining, strident less-skilled person should get a job just to make the numbers tally.  That dog don't fight in my feminist kennel, folks.  My style of feminism means working hard to be that more capable person; equal opportunity meant you wouldn't be held down by your gender.

Now, it seems that women who identify as feminist are liberal leftists first and feminist second.  Being feminist seems synonymous with vegan, big-government-loving, man-hating, gun-grabbing nasty-ass haters who decry hate.  Ladies, what on earth makes you turn on your fellow womankind because you disagree with her on a political point?  What on earth makes you think someone should fund your birth control?  Why do you believe people should get free anything, for that matter?  Why do you think people in Detroit should have water paid for by others who've worked for that money and came by it honestly?

And where, along the bra-littered roadway of equal rights, did your sense of humor go?  I recall being charmed by Gloria Steinem not just because of her beliefs that hard-working women deserve equal opportunities -- but because of her sense of humor in expressing it.  Why is it you've allowed yourselves to be humorless harpies defined by the "that isn't funny" Sandra Fluke meme?

For the record, I was one of those early feminist pioneer women types.  I worked in a male-dominated profession -- policing -- for two decades.  I get it.  I was one of eight women among the 300 sworn officers in the PD when I began.  I know the struggle first-hand.  I know the tendency to male-bash; been there, done that, long-ago wore out that t-shirt.  It was different, then, though; we were different.  I fondly recall the guys in briefing telling me the worst, most derogatory jokes about women they could come up with -- because we enjoyed the banter.  They loved hearing me respond with false indignation.  It was part of being "one of the guys" -- something I cherished.  Meanwhile, they were supportive, kind and helpful (for the most part).  Those who weren't matter not.

It saddens me to think that the fight for equal opportunity morphed into the fight for entitlement. It breaks my heart that in the struggle for control of our own bodies, we've chosen to control others' minds instead.  It frightens me that fighting for freedom means giving up our freedoms wholesale.

This gun-loving, wisecracking anti-entitlement freedom-loving feminist is still a feminist, alright.  I haven't changed.  But the rest of you … oh, my.  What a shame, what you've all become.


Copyright © 2014 MJ Miller * All rights reserved * No part of this content may be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the express permission of the author * Links to this page, however, may be freely shared * Thank you for liking, linking, sharing, +1'ing, tweeting, forwarding or otherwise helping grow my audience.  Most of all, thank you for stopping by.