The book by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is justifiably getting a lot of publicity at least in part because of its description of conduct that would have sunk political leaders in the days of Truman and Eisenhower.
Aside from those anecdotes, however, the entire practice of badmouthing a former boss should spark nostalgia for the good old practice of resignation in protest. If Secretary Gates had a serious problem with President Obama, he should have talked to him about it and, if the matter was not resolved, resigned. If the problem involved an ethical disagreement about which the country should know, he should have resigned and publicly described his concerns. Unless one of those circumstances is present, the President deserves basic loyalty even after the working relationship ends.
The argument of "I need to stay because if I leave a worse person will be appointed" misses the fact that remaining with a management team sends the signal that you approve of the team. We'll reach a sad state when people come to assume that is not the case and that the Cabinet resembles the conniving Senate of ancient Rome.
Before the allegation that I'm naive wings its way in, let me note that I've studied and written about the management styles of various presidents and am well aware of office politics and Cabinet wars. [Franklin Roosevelt intentionally created friction by secretly assigning the same projects to different Cabinet members and watching them fight over turf.] There is a basic standard, however, that should be followed by, to use an old expression, ladies and gentlemen.
If you work for a person, be loyal. If you can't be loyal, then leave.
5 comments:
Well said, Michael. Gates carries the responsibility he is attempting to lay off on others. He was there. What did he do?
Michael, I agree with your argument in most respects, but I'd offer another point of view in this specific case. The leader of an organization deserves his team, but government is not just another organization. Even the executive, the president's 'team,' has to represent the entire nation. Opposing viewpoints, particularly in the military world, are crucial to getting the job done correctly. Besides, from everything I've read Gates did his job faithfully while he was in office. He's no longer in office--why should he shut up?
Kurt,
That is a key question.
Larry,
Opposing viewpoints are important but in my view Secretary Gates, a highly capable person, crossed a big line when he revealed that President Obama and Secretary Clinton admitted to opposing the Bush surge for political reasons. To me, that is not a "sit quietly" and make notes for your memoirs" moment. He should have confronted them on that highly unethical conduct or resigned. The American people deserved to hear that anecdote earlier because, as you note, there is an obligation to the people and not just to the organization's team.
As always, thanks for your perspective.
Michael
I hold both Gates and Obama in high esteem. Gates was and is the consummate subordinate team leader, dedicated to his job and faithful to his bosses (perhaps to a fault). The president is a consummate political animal in the sense of politics being the art of the possible. Gates did exactly what Jerry did yesterday did -- he fled.
http://www.execupundit.com/2014/01/when-jerry-quit.html
But unlike Jerry, in this case he is able to make a difference in the place he left.
The important difference between them is that Gates never had to win an election and the president's entire persona hinges on crafting decisions against the metric of getting votes -- popular votes when citizens vote and the votes of their elected representatives in Congress when they don't. Two very different dynamics.
I've ordered Gates' book and am looking forward to reading it.
John,
Given his comments, Gates didn't flee soon enough. As for politics being the art of the possible, without integrity the possible can slide into opportunism and corruption. Zealotry, of course, can be dangerous and yet a lot of questionable conduct can be justified in the name of pragmatism.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Michael
Post a Comment