There's been a lot of discussion recently about how much politicians know about the scandals that threaten their political career.
- Did President Obama know about the IRS targeting conservative groups?
- How extensive was President Obama's knowledge of the NSA's spying program?
- Was President Obama aware of the calamity surrounding Healthcare.gov?
And finally...
- Did Chris Christie know about the Washington Bridge lane closures?
It all becomes exhausting, really.
Some people will argue, "of course he knew," while others may shrug and choose to let the story unfold.
What is all that scandalous about a corrupt politician anyway?
While I will certainly be waiting with baited breath to see the documents that supposedly prove that Christie was complicit in the Washington Bridge scandal, my thoughts have been focused on a larger question: why are politicians refusing to take responsibility for the mistakes that happen in their administration?
In 1945, Harry Truman popularized the phrase "the buck stops here." He was so committed to the concept that he was personally responsible
for the actions of his White House, that he kept a sign on his desk with
those words engraved as a reminder. In his farewell address in 1953, Truman said, ""The President--whoever
he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can
do the deciding for him. That's his job." Truman recognized that no one else could make the decisions that he made and therefore, no one bore the responsibility that he did.
That perspective seems rather quaint now.
Over the past year, there has been a growing trend of leaders relying on the argument of "I didn't know!" when it comes to scandals in their administration. No personal responsibility is taken and guilt is passed down to their subordinates. The problem with this response is two-fold: it is not true leadership and it undermines the politician's credibility.
Leadership is about taking ownership. You don't become President of the United States or Governor of New Jersey by luck. You've spent time convincing your constituents that you have the vision and the ability to make the tough calls and usher in needed changes. Leadership is inspiring those who work and vote for you. Leadership is about simultaneously giving people an ideal to aspire to and being sympathetic and relateable. Leadership is not being so self-absorbed that you throw your loyal supporters under the bus when hard times arrive. Who wants to work for a guy like that? Furthermore, who wants to vote for a politician that apparently thinks more of his own well-being than that of the individuals who have devoted their time and energy into making his administration successful? It lacks character and it reveals a rather childish perspective on life.
Furthermore, passing the buck down to subordinates seriously undermines the credibility of the politician in power. When a politician asks me to believe that they didn't know what was going on with major sections of their administration, what they are really asking me to believe that they are an incompetent leader who shouldn't be trusted with power. You want me to trust you to oversee the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapon arsenal, but you were clueless regarding the problems with Healthcare.gov? You want me to trust you to bring crime down in a state rife with violence, but you were unaware of a plan to close the world's largest bridge? It's too much. You're asking me to believe in your ignorance on the one hand and your competence on the other.
The problem, it seems, is that politicians are happy to take credit for the good in their administration but refuse to take responsibility for the negative. It's an immature way to function and it's a quality that I would prefer to not have in my politicians.
Sources and Recommended Reading
What Didn't Obama Know and When Didn't He Know It- American Thinker
