In that nearly minute and a half clip, he used the nouns "I, my, me, you (referring to himself)" 10 times. When examining leadership, I have a problem with leaders who constantly taking possession of everything by the use of the words I, me, my, etc. This is not only limited to the presidency by the way. First, it does not garner loyalty among those who work with the leader and also it creates an air of arrogance surrounding the leader, which will eventually lead to those inside and outside the organization questing the leadership skills being applied. For a leader to successfully lead, it has to be a team effort. The leader will not serve himself well by attracting sycophants, but instead, people who can strongly articulate a position and give the leader an additional perspective. Furthermore, a good leader must, to steal a phrase from the President, "spread the wealth" when it comes to taking credit for the good, but also step up and take blame for the bad. What we saw in that clip is a pattern with the president, as we all remember from the State of the Union. In education, I've seen leaders who follow Obama's pattern and do not last long in their respective positions. Could we say the same for the President when 2012 rolls around?
And in relation to the content of his press conference, America, hold on to your wallets...especially you, San Diego area residents, as your gas prices are the highest in the US!
Posts
Hm... Indulge me for a few minutes?
ReplyDeleteWhat I get from this clip is not a sense of Obama taking possession of everything, but a sense of introspection. It seems, beyond the immediate necessities of stopping the leak and cleaning up huge amounts of oil, that he has the broader issue of deep water drilling in general weighing on him. That's where his memories of growing up in Hawaii come in: it's an old experience of natural richness and beauty, and it's relevant here as a reminder that the (non-engineering) challenge of these drilling projects is in figuring out how to balance the preservation of ecosystems against the need to extract fuel.
We can speculate as to whether the stuff about his childhood was sincere or whether it was a calculated reinforcement of Hawaii as part of the Obama brand, but it seemed pretty clear to me that this, or something close to it, was the meaning of his statement. It didn't seem overly possessive. Maybe there's something I'm missing?
I mention this because my concern for the past few years has been that different parts of the country are simply talking past each other. In an earlier post on personal attacks, you implied that Sarah Palin is an articulate speaker with a coherent message. (Please correct me if I've misunderstood or mischaracterized what you said in item #2 of that post.) I just don't see it. There are so many times when I watch her speak and I feel like I'm looking at the English language through a series of funhouse mirrors. I say this in all earnestness. I'm not trying to be mean or snarky. I think, differences in political philosophy or policy preference aside, there's a real crisis of comprehension going on in which entire groups of people just can't even communicate with each other. That worries the shit out of me.
Sorry this is so long. Um. I'll admit that I haven't watched the entire press conference this clip came from either (it's over an hour long). But do you know what I mean about people talking past each other? It's dispiriting.
PS: It's Jen from high school here ... that probably wouldn't be clear from looking at my old Blogger profile.
Jen! First, thanks so much for reading my blog. I'm new to this whole blogging thing so after hearing advice from others I figured I'd take the plunge.
ReplyDeleteWhat inspired my thoughts on this post was really the first 50 seconds of the speech prior to the use of Malia, combined with thinking of my experiences in education and my Graduate Educational Leadership classes. I don't necessarily fault him for using Malia (all politicans in some form or another make mention of their kids). But back to my original point. Seeing that, thinking back to the SOTU, he is a frequent user of the word "I" and frankly, I think for a leader a little too frequent. Many Americans will respect him a lot more if he doesn't over-indulge in taking credit. Also, instead of taking credit, use I instead of we. I've seen principals and supervisors who did the same things and were eventually driven out of the school. Funny that as an only child, I have a problem with overuse of the word "I" lol.
With talking about Hawaii, you may be right, but the jury is still out either way.
On Sarah Palin, I think we're going to agree to disagree on that one. The first time I saw her was on an interview on Glenn Beck's old CNBC show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwZNwdowa4). I was pontificating who was going to be the next VP and after reading up on her, I predicted (and hoped) she'd get it. People thought I was nuts when I not only predicted, but preferred her. Is she perfectly articulate? No. Does she need work on some things? Yes.
After watching her in the campaign, I do not believe they utilized her correctly. Frankly, the McCain people did her wrong. If I were running the campaign, I would have had her out interviewing, first with FNC and more conservative outlets to warm her up for the MSM. When Sarah is on, as I say, "Sarah being Sarah," she is very effective. She excites conservatives and had she not been on that ticket and it was Lieberman (much talk about it in Halperin's "Game Change"), McCain would have lost by numbers similar to those Mondale had against Reagan. Many people think she is tainted by the media's harranging of her, but I disagree with this notion. With her book, (book #2 to be out around late 2010/early 2011) her appearances on FNC, and her utilization of social networking, she is on the way to rehabbing herself.
Leading up to 2012, I do not believe that Sarah Palin will seek the nomination. I want her to (she is my fantasy candidate), and I think she shows clear differences between Obama in terms of policies and agenda, but I just don't see it happening....just don't think she wants it now. In the future, who knows...
So, I finally read through a transcript of the entire press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gulf-oil-spill
ReplyDeleteThe clip we've been talking about is an excerpt from the middle of Obama's answer to the last question he took from the press. The question was: "Some in your government have said the federal government’s boot is on the neck of BP. Are you comfortable with that imagery, sir? Is your boot on the neck of BP? And can you understand, sir, why some in the Gulf who feel besieged by this oil spill consider that a meaningless, possibly ludicrous, metaphor?" I do think it's reasonable for Obama to answer a question directed at him personally by referring to himself with first-person pronouns. The first part of his response is a rejection of Ken Salazar's language. He then goes on to reiterate (assert?) to Gulf residents that he is treating the spill like the serious matter that it is.
It's funny, though: the clip reads differently in and out of context. I assumed he had the future of deep water drilling in mind, but it turns out, in the longer reply this clip is taken from, that he really IS taking possession of the spill response. He's defending himself against a charge that he's basically too disengaged. The distinction I see, though, is that he's not taking sole possession of credit for anything here. He's taking ultimate possession: in the end, he is responsibile for making sure enough is done to address the problem. It doesn't really seem too far out of line with your view that leaders should share more credit for successes and take more responsibility for failures.
I guess what I'm saying is just that even though this clip is what initially sparked your thoughts on political and educational leadership here, you could probably find another, less ambiguous one that would illustrate the point better. It would be interesting to go back to the State of the Union and examine the patterns you saw there.
Oh man. Dissecting a piece of text. Sorry to turn this into AP English instead of a political blog =)
So to bring this back to political stuff, though straying from the topic of leadership, I'll ask you this: Earlier in his response to the question about whether his "boot is on the neck of BP," Obama says, "I would say we don't need to use language like that; what we need is actions that make sure that BP is being held accountable." What do you think? Agree or disagree that BP should be held accountable for the spill? And what would accountability mean? What would constitute an acceptable level of accountability?
We'll talk more about Palin, etc., another time... This is long enough already.
Hope you're enjoying the weekend!
OK...bear with me on my response to your question. I'll address the "boot on the neck" statement. Instead of blaming and pointing fingers, (and you'll see that fingers should be pointed) the government should work with BP to help in stopping the leak and the cleanup effort. We can work out the blame later, let's just stop the leak and clean this thing up!
ReplyDeleteYes, BP should be held responsible for the spill. It happened on their rig, they should be held financially responsible in the cleanup, plugging etc, but the federal government doesn't come off squeaky clean in this for the following reasons:
1. The Federal Government gave the doomed rig a safety award (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_inspections)
2. The government did not have the booms ready to catch and burn the oil which could have stopped the spread of the spill. (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html)
3. The government's position on offshore drilling is questionable. When you drill in mile deep water, there is a greater chance for disaster.
We know this court case will go on for a long time and we know that the government's misses will be exposed on a greater basis and not help their case in making sure BP takes responsiblity.
Back to #3 for a minute. By no means do I believe offshore drilling should be suspended (other countries haven't), but how we drill needs to be re-examined. Moving it to more shallow waters, extracting shale in UT/CO/WY and drilling in ANWR could lead to America making use of the oil there, while lowering prices, while not having to rely on dictatorships that hate us for oil. At the same time, we need to continue R&D for energy alternatives...I am an "All of the above" guy when it comes to that.
There are great ramifications of this spill, especially for our economy...fuel prices will go up, including diesel. As a result, those who use diesel will more likely use ethanol, which as we know, comes from corn. Therefore, corn prices will go up and will force all other food prices up because as we know, commodoties do not operate independent of each other as a result of speculation.
If the bickering stops, the quicker both parties could work toward a resoution and save not only the environment, but the economy from further harm.
Oh! I didn't mean to imply that I thought the government had no responsibility in this, or that BP was solely to blame. Sorry if it came off that way.
ReplyDeleteWhat I had in mind was more along the lines of, you know ... here's Obama saying he's going to make sure BP is held accountable. But that's kind of an empty thing to say. (Maybe not 100% empty, but empty enough.) You'd think accountability would have started way before the repair-and-cleanup stage. What happened during the permitting phase of this project? How rigorous was the safety review? What about the lapses in inspection/enforcement? The responsibility cuts both ways.
I think we're on the same general page about that.
[I had more I wrote that was going to go in this spot, but it's really long and probably not worth the effort of you reading it, so just ... nevermind. I'm leaving it out.]
Anyway, I think a lot of what I'm doing here (and in the other comment thread, too) is just shuttling back and forth between two worlds, between people I know on the left and on the right, trying to form complete thoughts and fight the temptation to disengage entirely. It's really for my own benefit more than anything else. I'll stop bothering you with my ridiculous questions now.
PS -- And for the record, if I had to label myself anything, I'd probably say I'm a curmudgeon plagued by epistemological unease, but lately I'm trying to at least temper those inclinations with sincerity. I'm not on the left or the right. I'm not a centrist. I'm maybe up there in the balcony, behind Statler and Waldorf, watching the show, and the only thing I know for sure is, wait, there's a singing pig, and a dog playing piano, and someone is juggling fish. Yikes. -- Okay, and NOW I'm done bothering you.
Glad we seemed to be in agreement about the fault aspect. Awesome Muppet reference! I think I feel like that sometimes and could easily align any pundit on the left or the right to Statler and Waldorf. And please, continue to comment and contribute as I enjoy hearing your perspective...I may not always agree, but I appreciate the insight!
ReplyDeleteI got a little backed up this week, which is why I haven't responded on the other thread, but will do so once I get the time.