The Right Decision

It is widely known today that President Obama’s actions (or lack thereof) throughout his presidency have become a node of conflict amongst Americans. Thus, it did not surprise me when I found an Op-Ep article on the Los Angeles Times website about Mr. Obama, arguing that he is falling short of being a true leader. Arthur Brooks supports his claim that Obama is not living up to the expectations of the people by providing evidence from major polls, and by comparing the President’s actions to the definition of a leader. However, Brooks himself falls short on his analysis because he is only examining one side of being a leader.

According to Brooks’ definition of a leader, responsibility is a huge component. I cannot argue with that statement, but Brooks also claims that responsible leaders should always follow through with their words. While this may seem obvious on the surface, I contend that it would be more responsible for a leader to back off of their word if it meant that they were making the right decision. Brooks mentioned that Obama declared a ‘red line’ if President Assad of Syria used chemicals weapons, and when the use of such weapons was proven to be true, he backed down on his plans for pressuring Syria further. Though this action can undoubtedly be interpreted as a weakness, it is important to understand that Obama is actually considering that his past decision may not, in fact, be the best option. It’s very easy for someone to make a statement and see it all the way through because they feel they must defend their initial point, but when someone has the courage to admit they were wrong (whether verbally or in their actions), they prove that they are being responsible and not stubborn.

I am not saying that Obama’s approval rating should go up because he made the right choice. I’m merely stating that negatively interpreting President Obama’s role as a leader based on his decision to make the right call is irresponsible.