Jarol B. Manheim is a professor emeritus in the School of Media and Public Affairs.
One could almost feel the weight of the Nobel Peace Prize medallion hanging from a ribbon around Barack Obama’s neck. This most reluctant of presidents, steeped in the belief that rhetoric is leadership, built himself a box around Syria outlined in red and then, after a year’s hesitation, stepped into it.
Being our nation’s leader in this fragmented world is a heavy lift. American presidents do not have the luxury of simply voting “present” when called upon by the citizens. Their every word is measured and judged, their every commitment taken as meaningful, and yes, their every failure writ large because the U.S. matters in a way that no other nation does.
It is burdensome work, and sometimes the American people tire of it. That is when presidential leadership, in whatever direction, matters most. And leadership cannot depend on words alone.
In this context, the Syrian crisis is no longer about Syria; it is a test of American resolve. In his red-line draftsmanship, the President made it so. But in his very public hesitation, delay, cover-seeking and ultimate denial of responsibility for having drawn that line, Mr. Obama, boxed in, demonstrated weakness, the one thing an American president cannot do. Then he handed over control to Vladimir Putin. That is now where matters stand.
But that is not the box I have in mind.
The late political scientist James David Barber once developed a typology of presidential character, the sort of exercise with which students of the social sciences are quite familiar. His typology generated four boxes, or conditions, combining two dimensions of presidential personality, which he termed “active-passive” and “positive-negative.”
Presidents in the “passive-negative” box, he said, “are in politics because they think they ought to be. They…lack the experience and flexibility to perform effectively as political leaders. Their tendency is to withdraw, to escape from the conflict and uncertainty of politics by emphasizing vague principles (especially prohibitions) and procedural arrangements. They become guardians of the right and proper way, above the sordid politicking of lesser men.”
More and more, Obama appears to fit this characterization. In that sense, the indecision, inconsistency, inaction, lack of direction, denial and utter foolishness of the administration’s recent rhetoric is perhaps less accidental than it might appear.
And that is the box in which our president appears to be trapped still.
