[PINR] Oct. 01, 2004: Bush and Kerry Leadership Styles

[nosmokes]

Power and Interest News Report (PINR)
http://www.pinr.com
[e-mail]
------------------------------
October 01, 2004:

There has been debate over whether Israel may launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. View a past PINR from October of 2003 that discusses this possibility:

''Can Iran's Pursuit of Nuclear Technology Be Thwarted By Air Strikes?''
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=103
------------------------------

''Bush and Kerry: Contrasting Styles with the Same Results''

Drafted by Dr. Michael A. Weinstein on October 01, 2004
http://www.pinr.com

Much has been made recently of the contrasting decisional styles of American presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. According to the consensus of insider books and press interviews, Bush is a leader of the "C.E.O." type who dwells on the "big picture," chooses the side that conforms with that moralized picture and then proceeds with unwavering resolve to adhere to policies that he has been convinced by advisers conform to his vision. Kerry, on the other hand, is reported to be a "consulter" and "deliberator" who entertains multiple perspectives and has no clear big picture, does not choose sides on the basis of a clearly defined ideology and is disposed to shift policies when he is confronted with evidence of their adverse consequences.
~snip~
.
.
.

- Bush

The consequences of Bush's decisional style in the sphere of geostrategic behavior are on record in the failures of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the decisive application of the vision of his administration's National Security Strategy. Assuming a decade-long window of opportunity for the United States to become the protector of a worldwide system of market democracies, that strategy involved securing regime change in "rogue states," whether peacefully or through preemptive warfare. Iraq was the test case of the regime change policy and it has been a failure because the assumption that Iraqis would welcome American occupation proved unfounded.
~snip~
.
.
.

- Kerry

Were Kerry to capture the presidency, he would bring to the office a decisional style that appears to be the opposite of his rival's. Based on the many reports gathered from interviews with the candidate and his current and former political associates, Kerry focuses mainly on the possible consequences of alternative policies, seeking to gather information on issues from a variety of sources, playing devil's advocate and taking multiple perspectives on the meaning of the information he receives, and concentrating on worst-case scenarios and trying to anticipate the responses to his initiatives by allies and opponents. Whereas Bush is interested in his vision, Kerry is concerned with applications. Whereas Bush restricts his sources of information, Kerry expands them. Whereas Bush adheres to an ideology, Kerry is pragmatic and accepts established parameters. Whereas Bush is optimistic, Kerry is skeptical.
~snip~
.
.
.

- Conclusion

If anxiety is at the root of Kerry's incomplete decisional style, it is the same for Bush. One way of coping with lack of trust in one's own judgment is to immerse oneself in details in a fruitless attempt to anticipate all contingencies, and another is to ignore the contingencies altogether and dwell within the big picture that one has constructed within one's imagination. In both cases, the decisions that must be taken under the pressure of events will lack clarity of purpose and strength of resolve -- they will be reactive rather than proactive. In Bush's case, reactivity is the result of the failure of visionary proactivity and the absence of any strategic replacement for it. In Kerry's case, reactivity is his habitual mode of adaptation to stress, which would be unlikely to change if he became president.

Neither Bush's nor Kerry's decisional style is optimal for meeting the challenges to American interests that are growing in the world. Regional and world powers with interests that conflict with the United States will sense the drift in American geostrategy and will seek to exploit American vulnerability. After the presidential elections, a period is likely to open in which competing powers will test American resolve. In pursuing their interests, their challenge will be to push against the United States, but not so intensely that they provoke a spasmodic backlash.

complete article at http://www.pinr.com

---###---



- The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of [e-mail]. All comments should be directed to [e-mail].

------------------------------