I would bet dollars to donuts that Obama has read this book also. It was required reading for many American history and political science courses around the time Obama was in school, and would have been a footnote staple during the years that he taught at University of Chicago Law School. The book, published in 1982, had a profound effect on how political scientists viewed the exercise of political power. Obama is notorious for the level of intellectual preparation for various tasks, and frankly it's hard to imagine he has not read this book, one of the most well known in the political science cannon, in order to prepare for the presidency.
The legend of the book is that the author, Princeton professor Fred Greenstein, started out writing a book about presidential leadership, and decided to check Eisenhower's presidential papers to confirm the dominant view that Eisenhower was a detached president, who exercised little leadership, was already quite old when elected, and seemed primarily occupied with playing golf while his powerful cabinet members ran the government. Eisenhower was supposed to be something of a footnote on the absence of presidential leadership.
Greenstein, getting access to newly released archival records, was shocked that the dominant view of Eisenhower's presidency was basically wrong. Eisenhower was running the government with military efficiency and centralization, but
he did not want to seem to be running the government -- hence the title, "Hidden Hand Presidency."
Some presidents are detached from the exercise of power and making decisions, like Reagan and Bush II. Some presidents exercise presidential power and want to be seen as exercising presidential power, like Clinton, Carter, Johnson and Nixon.
Greenstein discovered that Eisenhower had developed a unique third way style -- the president who exercises political power, but wants the public to believe that others are exercising that power so that he appears to be "above politics." Publicly committing presidential prestige to certain policies can help those policies get enacted; but if those policies fail, then presidential prestige is irreparably damaged, and then the president can't get other policies enacted. (That was the sad lesson of the Clinton presidency from day one.) Hence the development by Eisenhower of a behind the scenes form of presidential power.
It seems to me that this form of presidential politics describes Obama's style. He has pretty much told us that this was his style -- that he wants to be above partisan politics (or at least be seen to be above partisan politics, even if he isn't). It seems to me that Obama is slowly but surely getting his agenda enacted even if he doesn't seem to be publicly staking his prestige on those priorities.
There are drawbacks to a "hidden hand presidential" style; one is that many voters want the president to not only get things done, but to be seen to be exercising power and prestige to get things done. For example, I've read a lot on the liberal blogosphere about how President Obama isn't publicly leading on health care reform, but claiming that it is Congress's job to deliver a bill to him. It's as though, even if we get health care reform with a strong public option, a certain part of the public will be disappointed that Obama didn't accomplish this goal by charging in and arm twisting the way Lyndon Johnson might have.
But the goal is health care reform; not the image of the president accomplishing health care reform.
A "Hidden Hand" president tends not to take strong moral stances in public, and Eisenhower's style made his commitment to civil rights muted. Many progressives consider Eisenhower a hero for his speech about the "military industrial complex," but it's important to keep in mind that Eisenhower never uttered a word about the military industrial complex until he was about to leave office -- despite the fact that he presumably developed these views because of conflicts with the military during the Korean War, the nuclear competition with the Soviets (see especially theories about the U-2 incident), and the attempt to begin disarmament as the Korean War wound down.
The Iraq war is ending, and it's pretty clear even from mainstream media coverage that Obama faced tremendous opposition from the military and securocrats to end it; but publicly, it just looks like he is following an pre-existing time table to end the war. Moreover, the administration is ending the Iraq war without making any ringing speeches about how immoral and strategically foolish the war was, even though from Obama's writings and campaign speeches, it's pretty clear that that is what he believes.
It's pretty amazing how much is getting done in so many areas without any fanfare or public taking of credit by the White House.
Here is an oddly prescient description of the Obama presidency, even though it is actually a summary of Greenfield's theory of Eisenhower's "Hidden Hand" leadership style:
http://www.answers.com/topic/hidden-hand-presidencyThe “hidden-hand Presidency” was the term used by Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein to describe the Presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower. During his term most historians and political scientists viewed Eisenhower as a political amateur who reigned but did not rule. “This man neither liked the game he was engaged in nor had gained much understanding of its rules,” argued political scientist Richard Neustadt in 1960.
...
Greenstein concluded that Eisenhower was actually a sophisticated politician who had honed his grasp of politics while in the army. During World War II he had to smooth over disputes among Allied officers of several nations, and he eventually worked closely with three world statesmen: U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, French Resistance leader Charles de Gaulle, and British prime minister Winston Churchill.
Greenstein argued that Eisenhower played politics the way he played poker: with a “hidden hand” that was much better than his opponents realized. There were five facets to Eisenhower's approach to politics. First, he was a skillful politician who chose not to let others realize that fact. He camouflaged his participation in politics by relying on others to take a partisan role while he himself played the role of “President of all the people.” His adversaries would underestimate him as a politician, but the American people would support him for being “above politics.” Yet in reality Eisenhower was extensively involved in Republican party politics. Second, Eisenhower often used language that was deliberately ambiguous or spoke in an evasive, noncommittal, or seemingly confused way. This tactic enabled him to avoid taking unpopular positions on controversial issues, but it also led his adversaries to underestimate him. Third, Eisenhower avoided dealing in personalities. He never attacked anyone else's motives or made statements that would convert his political adversaries into bitter enemies. He often masked his own negative feelings about those with whom he had to work—including leading members of Congress of his own party—in order to stay on friendly terms with them. Maintaining his image as a genial leader also contributed to Eisenhower's popularity. Fourth, Eisenhower had a keen grasp of psychology: he could step into other people's shoes in order to understand how they viewed the world. He always tried to know what his adversaries were thinking before he engaged them in a controversy. And he tried to think of ways to bring them over to his side. Finally, Eisenhower gave his subordinates important assignments but never lost control of policy. He would share credit for success with subordinates but would let them take most of the blame for the failures, disassociating himself from them when necessary to preserve his own position as a statesman in the eyes of the American people.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
