The Campaign Manager
"Perhaps the most telling critique of [Barack] Obama, to my mind, is his lack of executive experience," Andrew Sullivan writes today. He notes that he asked Obama directly about this issue during an interview in connection with a profile Sullivan wrote on the candidate in the December 2007 issue of our sister publication, The Atlantic. Obama responded, he writes, by talking about his campaign:
He observed out that he was up against the full Clinton establishment, all the chits she and her husband had acquired over the years, and the apparatus they had constructed within the party. He had to build a national campaign from scratch, raise money, staff an extremely complex electoral map, and make key decisions on spending and travel. He asked me to judge his executive skills by observing how he was managing a campaign.
"By that standard," Sullivan says, "who isn't impressed?"
Very few aren't impressed, I'd guess. But is Obama's standard appropriate? I'd suggest that historically there's a fairly weak correlation between skill at campaigning and skill at running the executive branch. Bill Clinton was a campaigner par excellence, but a strong case could be made that didn't translate into above-average effectiveness running the executive branch. The same could be said for George W. Bush. Jimmy Carter ran a highly impressive out-of-nowhere presidential campaign, but seemed overwhelmed at times by the challenge of running the massive federal apparatus.
In his 2000 book The Presidential Difference, Fred I. Greenstein of Princeton University makes the case that the most effective modern presidential executive was someone who had never before run for office until he was elected president -- Dwight Eisenhower. What Eisenhower had done was to run what was in essence a massive bureaucratic operation.
Many presidential candidates fall into the trap of thinking that doing things like making "key decisions on spending and travel" are great preparation for governing the country. But tough as they are, such decisions are small potatoes compared to, say, developing and implementing a $3.1 trillion budget.
Running a campaign has very little in common with running a country -- which is not to suggest, of course, that Obama might not be as great at the latter as he appears to be at the former. But if he is, it'll be much more impressive than winning a race for office.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Most citizens are looking for leadership, good judgment, and values in a president. An MBA, we've seen, is of no particular help, and there's no proven case that business experience would be more than handy. The president "runs" little except his cabinet and the WH staff. They in turn are the executives and overseers who run the Executive Branch from the inside. While he determines what is policy--with the "help" of Congress--that's done almost entirely through appointees and staff. It's too bad that the primary process doesn't force candidates to reveal their tentative appointees Finally, let's not confuse governing with "running" the country. The president doesn't "run" that either. Being a leader is something else again.
Michael Lent Posted Thursday, February 7, 2008 1:28 PMA candidate who has managed to raise 32 million dollars of campaign funds over and above the 26 million in funds raised by Hiliary Clinton says a lot about executive prowness. Campaigns are akin to advertising and decision making embodied in a fast dash effort to win an election. Choosing among alternatives to surpass a former president's wife say a lot about having the abilities of an executive. President Bush is spending 7.3 billions on IT Security when the monies can be used economically elsewhere for hungry familes or even national security. Barack chooses to "protect has investments" and would prove an chief executive officer with the decision making ability to put the funds to work more efficiently.
Linda Goffigan Posted Monday, February 11, 2008 5:31 AMThis touches to a degree on the age-old distinction between being a good leader and being a good manager. Executive experience may very well provide evidence of both, but not necessarily. A key consideration is being able to surround oneself with good people and letting them do their jobs. However, by focusing too much on executive experience in electing a President, we would largely be limiting ourselves to governors, generals and corporate CEO's.
Bruce Rodman Posted Monday, February 11, 2008 9:39 AM