Leadership is telling people what they need to hear and doing what needs to be done

David Broder and Richard Cohen have been showing a bit of liberal leadership, lately, at the Washington Post, these days. A refreshing departure from the blind and mindless partisanship of E.J. Dionne and his nasty, pressuring, sanctimonious ilk.

David writes a piece, today, that begins to get at exactly why I am so unenamoured with the pressure politics at the Post and by manipulative partisans like Dionne.

A Mob-Rule Moment

Someone needed to say it.

I'm not as hip to David's insistence on broad border control. I want to see more concentration on strategic border control; everbody should cross the border legally and orderly, as reasonably as possible. But there is no reason that we should waste precious immigration service manpower and resources on deporting illegals who want to work and raise families in America instead of searching out true bad guys, like terrorists and violent criminals likely to reoffend.

And I'm not as keen on labor and environmental regulations that don't take into account legitimate needs for flexibility on the part of American businesses and unions, businesses and unions abroad, environmental leaders and heads of state from countries beyond our borders, and other participants in trade and labor and environmental issues who should have a say about specific needs in specific industries and in specific countries that broader and stricter regulations from Congress may or may not be able to address.

But here is where David gets exactly the problem with the current political moment and why pressure politics is such a poor substitute for real leadership:

"The point is pretty basic. Politicians are wise to heed what people want. But they also have an obligation to weigh for themselves what the country needs. In today's Washington, the "wants" of people count far more heavily than the nation's needs.

You can win elections by promising people what they want. But you win your place in history by doing what the country needs done."

Exactly. What we need, right now, in Washington, on the war in Iraq, on immigration, on trade and the economy, and on so many issues that face the country is leaders who exercise their independent judgments and who have better policy ideas to navigate our way through the serious problems we face, especially the war.

Sam Brownback and I disagree about outlawing abortions, even as we agree about wanting to reduce the number of abortions to as close to zero as is reasonably and justifiably possible.

But one thing I respect about Sam, right now, is that when he talks about being pro-life, he talks about it as a debate of ideas, not a moment for bullying the consciences of those we disagree with. Sam and I may disagree about the regulation of abortion. But something I agree with him fervently about is that his nor my conscience should be bullied or bludgeoned into taking a position that I think is wrong. People who do so are cowards who lack conviction in the real substance and better direction of their policy proposals. I don't lack that confidence. So I have no need to bully or bludgeon. I am just fine with persuading and leading.

And that is what America needs, right now. It doesn't need more pressure politics. It needs leadership. Generally, that means engaging people from all sides, those who agree and disagree, to arrive at the best, most thoughtful and well planned policy ideas. And other times it means, as with the case of Scooter Libby, telling the pressure groups to go fuck themselves. As Byron York accurately describes the hypocrisy and politics at play above any real substantive concern, "People who in 1998 argued that lying under oath didn't really matter, at least if it was about sex, will passionately argue that lying under oath really, really matters now. And people who in 1998 argued that lying under oath mattered very much will argue that it is not such a big deal today." Some issues, like a man's freedom becoming the plaything of vindictive partisans, are just too important to treated like haggling for trinkets in Mexico.

Especially on the war, right now, what America needs is less pressure, more thoughtful engagement from everyone on all sides with one another, and leadership by someone who has gotten or who is getting their heads wrapped around that situation. Frederick Kagan, David Kilcullen, David Paetreus, and Robert Gates seem to get it better than most, right now, by my lights. Joe Nye and Francis Fukuyama have important international policy insight that should be solicited. But Frederick Kagan is really the man with his mind wrapped around this situation, that I've seen, thusfar.

And we need political leaders who can try to understand the situation as well or better than these guys, to articulate that understanding publicly for the American people, and to show some leadership in this war and for the country, whether it squares, right now, with the thinking (and, really, the lack thereof, generally) of the American people or not.

Leaders are not called leaders because they follow the whims of pressure groups. They are called leaders because they take stands and lead others independent of the pressure. And that is what we need in Washington, right now.

And it is nice, after a long hiatus, to hear a liberal in Washington say that again.

Love,
Ben