The most effective leaders inspire others and lead by example. They listen to others - even those with opposing viewpoints - and find ways to build consensus. They focus on the team, not the self. They take responsibility and don't blame others.
President Obama inspired millions of Americans during the 2008 campaign with promises to bring Americans together: "there are no red states and blue states, just the United States." While he was an extremely successful campaigner, he's been far from an effective leader. Even fellow Democrats have noted that Obama always has to be "the smartest man in the room." A leader should inspire, not lecture. His speeches - and even responses in last month's debates - are loaded with 1st-person pronouns, unless the subject is the economy.
Obama frequently cites obstinate Republicans in Congress for blocking his jobs bills, and pinning the blame on them for the current economic slowdown, as well as "the failed policies" of his predecessor. There is no doubt that the economy was a mess at the end of 2008. However, he conveniently overlooks the fact that this recession officially ended in June, 2009. We are now 3 years and 4 months into a post-recession economy under Obama's leadership, and unemployment is worse than when he took office. Obama's solution to the economy, "the stimulus", has done nothing to put our economy back on track. Obama now wants to tax "the rich"; if he really believed that would help the economy then why didn't he push for tax increases when he had filibuster-proof majorities in both houses, and why did he extend the Bush tax rates?
Regarding those "obstinate Republicans" in Congress, they control only one half of Congress. President Reagan faced a similar Congressional divide, with Democrats controlling the House. Reagan frequently invited Speaker Tip O'Neill to the White House to discuss matters of policy. Though they often disagreed, they were able to work together. How different would our country be today if Obama and Speaker Boehner had this kind of working relationship? Instead we now face a "fiscal cliff" that could send the economy into a depression. President Clinton had to work with a Republican House led by Newt Gingrich. Together they passed historic welfare reform. Are we to believe that John Boehner is a more obstinate non-negotiator than Newt Gingrich? Rather, it seems that Barack Obama is a more obstinate ideologue than Bill Clinton.
His own party has controlled the Senate since he took the oath of office, and yet the Senate rejected Obama's most recent budget proposal 99-0. In his recent book, The Price of Politics, Bob Woodward describes how then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, put the President on mute during conference-call negotiations regarding the 2009 stimulus bill, continuing to talk with other top Democrats while ignoring the President. Senate majority leader Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in over three years. How can a President lead the country if he can't work with either house of Congress, even one led by his own party?
Obama's current campaign is the antithesis of "hope and change", and more a fulfillment of his 2008 comments: "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things." Instead of inspiring Americans with new ideas, he focuses on tearing down his opponent and dividing Americans on small things like Big Bird, bayonets and now "voting for revenge".
In contrast, Mitt Romney has run a very positive campaign, stressing his executive experience as governor, business executive, and turnaround artist for the Salt Lake City Olympics. Much of his career has been outside of politics, and in the competitive world of business, he has learned to build consensus with those of opposing opinions, made difficult decisions, and demonstrated a proven track record of success. And rather than put himself in the spotlight, we hear from others about his many selfless acts of charity. Sounds like just the kind of leader our country needs right now.
