From The Weekly Standard in 2010, The Process is the Substance by Matthew Continetti:
Once the shock wore off, the Democrats decided that if they could not pass their reform following normal procedure, they would simply change the procedure. Hence the decision to pursue “reconciliation,” a parliamentary measure under which budgets can pass the Senate by a simple majority. Except even that wasn’t enough. For reconciliation to happen, the House would have to pass the original Senate bill—a bill which even the speaker of the House admitted no one wanted to vote for. Solution: Change the procedure again, this time “deeming” the Senate bill passed without actually voting for it. Dismiss the public outcry over all these changes as flippant objections to mere “process.” And in order to ensure a positive score from the Congressional Budget Office, game the system so that the taxes come first, the spending comes later, Medicare “savings” are double-counted, and a student-loan reform applies to health care’s price tag. One cannot judge the full consequences of health care reform. What can be judged is the manner by which Democrats have governed over the last year. They have been partisan and ideological, derisive and dismissive. They try to legislate massive changes to American society and the American economy by the tiniest of margins and the most arcane of methods. The process has taken on a substance all its own. And it’s repellent.
President Obama made a presidential decision, both to remain focused on the pursuit of Bin Laden and on the crucial decision to bend the rules to send Special Forces in on the ground and kill him. He deserves credit for the success of the mission.
Such operations demonstrate the incredible ability of our elite forces, but we should not lose awareness of the riskiness of such an operation. While so much went right there was much that could have gone wrong. We could have had more dead US soldiers, dead civilians, and another international crisis. It was the dramatic risk involved that made this decision presidential.
If it had gone bad the celebrations today would have been protests of presidential incompetence. But the decision would have been just as presidential. When Jimmy Carter decided to execute a rescue attempt in Iran that ended in humiliating failure he was deemed unfit for office. Yet, was his decision any less presidential than Obama’s?
The harsh reality in such circumstances is that important decisions commonly entail risks of failure? Such risks may be reduced by intelligence and experience but they are never eliminated and remain in the best of circumstances. Many fail to understand that good decisions can yield bad results.
While this decision worked well we should understand that failure is not necessarily synonymous with a bad result. And sometimes even a bad decision is better than no decision. Terrible losses in such situations are less likely to come from single failures than the ultimate failure- quitting.
“Demands on Political Leadership: Beware charisma”
by Peter F. Drucker from The Daily Drucker
Charisma is “hot” today. There is an enormous amount of talk about it, and an enormous number of books are written on the charismatic leader. But, the desire for charisma is a political death wish. No century has seen more leaders with more charisma than the twentieth century, and never have political leaders done greater damage than the four giant leaders of the twentieth century: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao. What matters is not charisma. What matters is whether the leader leads in the right direction or misleads. The constructive achievements of the twentieth century were the work of completely uncharismatic people. The two military men who guided the Allies to victory in World War II were Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall. Both were high disciplined, highly competitive and deadly dull.
Perhaps the greatest cause for hope, for optimism is that the new majority, the knowledge workers, the old politics make no sense at all. But proven competence does.