Why is less decisiveness bad?

[Darth Wong]

OK, now that I've posted my take on the right's criticism of the "anybody but Bush" idea (to an amusingly vapid set of responses and attempts to change the subject), here's another right-wing dogma point to argue: why is it so bad that Kerry appears to be less decisive than Bush?

Let's look at some of the major decisions and issues of the past 4 years and ask how they would have gone with a less decisive president:

• Afghanistan: after 9/11, there was no ambiguity anywhere that something should be done, so even a rather indecisive president would have acted. There was international consensus on Afghanistan and the Taliban, so our hypothetical less-decisive president would have invaded there as well.
• Iraq: there was massive resistance from many quarters on Iraq, so regardless of whether our indecisive president was personally in favour of invading Iraq or not, he would have hesitated. He certainly would not have brushed aside every criticism, suppressed every dissenting voice, demonized every opponent to the idea as a traitor, trod all over any allies who objected, etc.
• Gay marriage: regardless of his personal stance, a less-decisive president would have probably left it to the courts, rather than declaring a political crusade on homosexuals.
• Stem-cell research: even if he was against it on a personal level, a less-decisive president would hem and haw about banning or strictly regulating it, which would in turn effectively condone it.
• Science and the environment: a less-decisive president probably would have let the science councils researching these issues operate pretty much independently, rather than sacking anybody who said anything he didn't like and trying to stock the councils with people who would walk his party line.

So why is it so important for a president to be ultra-decisive again? Could someone explain it? Because I'm just not seeing the benefit of that ultra-decisive nature here.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

So why is it so important for a president to be ultra-decisive again?

I believe that the stock answer--and probably most correct--is that people are dumb.

[Master of Ossus]

There are many situations that mandate a quick response, and some in which picking a BAD path is better than doing nothing at all. It's not a good thing, necessarily, to be decisive about EVERYTHING, but it helps to have the ability to be decisive about SOME things.

[Darth Wong]

There are many situations that mandate a quick response, and some in which picking a BAD path is better than doing nothing at all.

Such as?

It's not a good thing, necessarily, to be decisive about EVERYTHING, but it helps to have the ability to be decisive about SOME things.

OK, how did ultra-decisiveness help in the major presidential decisions of the last 4 years? Why should a surplus of decisiveness be regarded as a key advantage for Bush?

PS. Decisiveness is not a binary on/off 1/0 proposition. One is either more or less decisive, not "decisive" or "indecisive". And I think I have presented a reasonable case to argue that Bush is much too decisive. He is the person who would make a decision by tossing a coin and then get angry at anyone who questions his judgement.

[Master of Ossus]

There are many situations that mandate a quick response, and some in which picking a BAD path is better than doing nothing at all.

Such as?

Waiting too long on potential trade deals is often worse than outright accepting them or turning them down, since you damage the ability of domestic manufacturers to jump in on the market, and potentially allow other manufacturers to swoop in, in the meantime. This has happened several times with technology firms, allowing foreign competitors to undercut American and European businesses. Turning something down is better, since manufacturers know to shrink their capacity.

In an arguably more visible (but much more absurd) example, it doesn't help much to declare something a disaster area a month after a disaster occurs.

OK, how did ultra-decisiveness help in the major presidential decisions of the last 4 years? Why should a surplus of decisiveness be regarded as a key advantage for Bush?

I'm not saying it's good to be decisive EVERYWHERE, nor do I think it's a huge advantage for Bush since being cautious and waiting also obviously has advantages. However, it is at least a difference in the candidates where both extremes can pose problems, and even points closer to the middle can sometimes lead someone into trouble.

PS. Decisiveness is not a binary on/off 1/0 proposition. One is either more or less decisive, not "decisive" or "indecisive". And I think I have presented a reasonable case to argue that Bush is much too decisive. He is the person who would make a decision by tossing a coin and then get angry at anyone who questions his judgement.

Heh. I agree that it's not a yes/no capability, and I also agree that Bush often leaps before looking. However, it is incorrect to characterize decisiveness as being uniformly bad in leadership. Ideally, a leader understands when a quick decision is better than waiting it out and vice versa, and uses that to set time-frames for their decision-making.

[Darth Wong]

Heh. I agree that it's not a yes/no capability, and I also agree that Bush often leaps before looking. However, it is incorrect to characterize decisiveness as being uniformly bad in leadership.

Good thing I said nothing of the sort, then. I said that less decisiveness is not necessarily bad, by way of rebuttal to the stock anti-Kerry argument that since he isn't as decisive as Bush, he isn't as good a leader. I don't see why I should have to put up with my political threads being strawmanned in this fashion.

[Master of Ossus]

Good thing I said nothing of the sort, then. I said that less decisiveness is not necessarily bad, by way of rebuttal to the stock anti-Kerry argument that since he isn't as decisive as Bush, he isn't as good a leader. I don't see why I should have to put up with my political threads being strawmanned in this fashion.

I wasn't trying to accuse you of saying that. I was merely making the point.

[Ender]

In my mind, having a decisive leader isn't bad. The problem is when the person refuses to admit mistakes and then refuses to take responsibility and correct them.

[Darth Wong]

In my mind, having a decisive leader isn't bad. The problem is when the person refuses to admit mistakes and then refuses to take responsibility and correct them.

As I said, that's just a matter of being too decisive. Making decisions on paper is easy, but it's the commitment you bring to actually act on that decision which marks an unusually "decisive" person. Bush has such commitment to his decisions that he gets angry when people question them, even if it's obvious that they're not going as he planned.

[Symmetry]

why is it so bad that Kerry appears to be less decisive than Bush?

Its not particularly bad. Beind decisive is good, but its not as important as, say, honesty.

[Agrajag]

[]Afghanistan[/b]: after 9/11, there was no ambiguity anywhere that something should be done, so even a rather indecisive president would have acted. There was international consensus on Afghanistan and the Taliban, so our hypothetical less-decisive president would have invaded there as well.

I think that's going a bit far. Kerry MAY have gone to the UN to deal with it and may have bombed Taliban training areas and the like but I'm not totally sure he'd have moved to entirely overthrow the government. I'd put the odds as equal that he'd do this or invade.

In Iraq, with no invasion, there'd be no beheadings. There'd be no 1,000 plus dead. There'd be no world loss of prestige and respect. We'd certainly have a greater sense of safety. Anyone who says they honestly feel safer now is no one I want to have a deep discussion with. They're fooling themselves into mass halucination. As I've said many times, no one has become safer by kicking the bees nest and then standing next to it.

So why is it so important for a president to be ultra-decisive again? Could someone explain it? Because I'm just not seeing the benefit of that ultra-decisive nature here.

Bush appeals to many who simply, in my view, aren't mature enough to realize that fighting fire with fire is something we teach our children not to do and that we ourselves mainly grew out of (except for those of you at 40 who still get into bar fights weekly). Most adults haven't been in a fist fight since childhood but many of us had the desire to once in a while, but maturity kicked in and you realized it wasn't the best course of action.

These mysterious people we do not understand and aren't even sure about their true origins have attacked us. That scares many again, mainly because we don't understand this enemy, so the instinctive reaction is to grab the pipe and go kick the shit out of them. Right or wrong doesn't enter into it and now it would be too embarrassing to admit we were just pissed off and knocked the teeth out of the wrong neighbor so instead one makes up an excuse about this neighbor deserving his fate anyway, as if that in some way justifies an argument we wouldn't buy from our own children.

"Mom, Bobby punched me in the lip today so I went and blew up Bobby's room with M80's. I was so mad that I went next door to Chuck's house and blew up the whole thing along with his family." "But son, why did you blow up Chuck's house and kill his family?" "He was a bad kid Mom and someday he might have hit me in the lip like Bobby."

Ridiculous? Well, yes, but guess what? This is how a LOT of the rest of the world views us and it's just as ridiculous to them as it is to you for reasons 180 degrees in the other direction from yours. Now, will anyone be messing with Bobby? Not to his face but you can be damned sure that everyone will be looking to do in Bobby at the first opportunity because Bobby's dangerous to EVERYONE.

[Stormbringer]

In my mind, having a decisive leader isn't bad. The problem is when the person refuses to admit mistakes and then refuses to take responsibility and correct them.

As I said, that's just a matter of being too decisive. Making decisions on paper is easy, but it's the commitment you bring to actually act on that decision which marks an unusually "decisive" person. Bush has such commitment to his decisions that he gets angry when people question them, even if it's obvious that they're not going as he planned.

I don't know that that's so much decisive as inflexible. The problem is that Bush is both. He's made calls and instead of trying to adapt he's just barged ahead changing nothing. That's been the cause of most of the disaster that has been his foreign policy.

Kerry, as it seems he's indecisive but some what flexible. His somewhat inconsistent position on Iraq bothers me, because of the shades of Bush-ian defend any decision not matter how stupid. But Kerry seems willing to do some other than stay the course.

[PrinceofLowLight]

A president needs to be decisive because people like a decisive leader. It's all in the primitive part of the brain: A leader who doesn't hesitate appeals to our baser nature, which looks for the "Alpha Male" qualities. The populace will react better to "man of action" more than "cold strategizer", regardless of how well they perform otherwise. The president is, before anything else, the "face" of the government.

Sadly, these traits are rarely found together. Usually the best system you can hope for is a charismatic "man of action" who just works as a middleman between the advisors who create policy and the people who have policy inflicted on them.

least that's how I seez it...

[Darth Paul]

To me, decisiveness is a misleading term here. For a strong leader, doing nothing (in an informed way) is also a sign of decisiveness. In the role of president, decisiveness is a forgone requirement. From that perspective, I don't personally see Bush as being significantly more or less decisive than other leaders in my memory (well, OK, he's more decisive than Chretien). The headings listed were clearly personal hot buttons, but where has his decisiveness been on the local economy or the ongoing horror in Central Africa?

The later point concerning the dogged insistance that once a decision is taken, it must be followed through regardless is to me the more frightening aspect.

Most of the really "decisive" leaders I have worked with have tended to display the same traits - one has to be careful not to confuse them with the facts once their minds are made up.

[The Dark]

In my opinion, Bush is ruling out of fear. Not in the same manner as a tyrant dictator, but ruling due to the complicity of the American people due to their fear. After the events of September 11, there were many paths a leader could have taken to overcome the fears of the American populace; after all, we have overcome our nation being invaded (1812), being bombed by a foreign enemy (Japan, World War II, Oregon), and the threat of nuclear war (Cuban Missile Crisis). Nor was this the first terrorist attack on American soil. Instead, George Walker Bush chose to play to the fears of America, by acting in a near dictatorial role to preserve the nation (which is common in times of war; De Gaulle did the same with the Algeria crisis, and the Iron Lady did so with the Falklands War). In so doing, he created a means of controlling the people. However, rule by fear is always subject to a few limitations:

1. If it is shown that the ruler cannot keep that which is feared away from those that fear it, he becomes ineffective.
2. If the people lose their fear, either through removal of the threat or overexposure to the threat, the ruler becomes ineffective.
3. If the people begin to fear something else more, and the ruler does not respond to the new fear, he is ineffective.

I believe the American people are beginning to recognize that the invasion of Iraq has led to an increased threat of terrorism (thus breaking down rule 1). The seemingly political games with the terror alert system (whether they are or not is not important; appearances are vital) have broken down rule 2, as they remove the ability to determine whether there is a threat or not. And finally, people are growing concerned with the jobless recovery (which is not unexpected under labor theory) and the apparent weakness of the economy, which has not been adequately addressed by the current Republican administration.

[Wicked Pilot]

Decisiveness is important, but one must realize it does not cancel out stupidity.

[Agrajag]

Dark, great post. Wicked, dead on. Decisive stupidity is never a good thing. Lemmings are not what we want in this office. All we have gotten from this man is an agenda that does not benefit 80% of us and puts us in some really bad situations economically, politically, emotionally and risks our own basic security and rights.

[Ma Deuce]

I think that's going a bit far. Kerry MAY have gone to the UN to deal with it and may have bombed Taliban training areas and the like but I'm not totally sure he'd have moved to entirely overthrow the government.

What possible reason would there be to go to the UN to deal with Afghanistan? It's not like the UN could really do anything to them that they wern't doing already, and a coalition of willing allies came forth to help out there without any UN resolutions to nudge them.

As for the Taliban: I think even Kerry would realize that the American people (who were understandibly out for blood after 9/11) would not accept anything less than the overthrow of the government who gave aid and shelter to the pertetrators of 9/11. To allow them to hold onto their power would have been political suicide.

[Agrajag]

To allow them to hold onto their power would have been political suicide.

Apparently you haven't been keeping up on the happenings in Afghanistan lately.

[Keevan_Colton]

To allow them to hold onto their power would have been political suicide.

Apparently you haven't been keeping up on the happenings in Afghanistan lately.

This makes a much better point than I think you realize...

[Chardok]

If this whole thing is a shot at George W. Bush, then I don't appreciate it. Because you see, when a republican shows what YOU term as indecisiveness, it's actually called "Fexibility" When a Democrat does it, it's "Wishy-washy".



Oh, right;

[Agrajag]

This makes a much better point than I think you realize...

Shhh, don't remind anyone who is oblivious to the situation. Hey, aren't we due for a Homeland Security Alert?

[weemadando]

Some people would have called such indecisiveness:

"Awaiting the best-possible analysis of the facts of the situation and creating/altering a stance based upon up-to-date knowledge."

[Ma Deuce]

To allow them to hold onto their power would have been political suicide.

Apparently you haven't been keeping up on the happenings in Afghanistan lately.

Oh pul-ease. Are you honestly saying we should have let the Taliban (who harbored and sheltered al-Quada, and refused to hand them over despite the ulimatum given to them) retain their control of Afghanistan? Regardless of the bullshit that is happening in Afghanistan right now ("vote for Karzai or we'll burn your house down!"), there is no two ways about it: the Taliban had to go...

[Pablo Sanchez]

Oh pul-ease. Are you honestly saying we should have let the Taliban (who harbored and sheltered al-Quada, and refused to hand them over despite the ulimatum given to them) retain their control of Afghanistan? Regardless of the bullshit that is happening in Afghanistan right now ("vote for Karzai or we'll burn your house down!"), there is no two ways about it: the Taliban had to go...

The problem is that... well they didn't go, they're still there, and our non-existent long-term strategy for Afghanistan is allowing them to steadily move back in.