Earlier in the week I asked what the Keystone pipeline decision says about Mr. Obama.  I now want to offer my answer to the question I raised:  the basic problem we have with Mr. Obama’s leadership is we have the first ideologue president.  I have written on this before, so it might be useful to read this first, so I don’t have to redefine terms.

Why do I call Mr. Obama an ideologue, and not simply a partisan?  Because he is unwilling to compromise to get a deal that would even give him much of what he wants, if it means giving the other side something they want–at least on big, important issues.  Let me illustrate with a counter example.  Mr. Reagan was perhaps the most conservative president ideologically since Grover Cleveland (although my historical Bereans may have better choices), but in any case of the last 50 years.  But Mr. Reagan was quick to work with the other side and take any deal he found advantageous–such as the 1986 tax reform act.  Or his deal with the Speaker of the House, Mr. Tip O’Neill, to increase domestic spending in exchange for a buildup of the military and tax cuts for economic growth in his first term.

Mr. Obama, instead, lectures us that elections have consequences (that is, if not a mid-term election where his preferred candidates are defeated), and he is more than willing to go it alone (such as with ACA or his more recent executive orders).  He is widely noted, even by Democrats, as not particularly enjoying the political process of building consensus and schmoozing congress–even members of his own party find him strangely detached.

I first suspected that Mr. Obama was an ideologue–and not just a very progressive partisan–when he created a commission on the national debt, the bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson Commission.  This was in response to Republican criticisms over the large deficits during Mr. Obama’s first term.  While I think the commissions conclusions were not in any way optimal for dealing with the problem, it was a serious effort, and yet the President never really got behind it (it wasn’t submitted as part of his budget) and ultimately it died, with, as usual, progressives blaming Republicans.  But leadership has to come from the President, and on this issue he offered none.  The main revenue generator for that proposal was tax reform–especially corporate tax reform.  Bowles-Simpson (as well as politicians left and right) agree that we could generate much more revenue by lowering the tax rate and broadening the base (eliminating deductions).  Yet year in and year out this doesn’t happen.  Mr. Obama will not push this reform, unless he is allowed to spend all of the new revenue.  Republicans, naturally, insist that any tax reform be revenue neutral.  So we’re 6+ years into the Obama administration, and we will continue to have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and yet generate relatively little revenue from it.  Seriously–I don’t get it.  Mr. Obama had much more leverage a few years ago with his Democratic majority–he could have taken credit for reforming the tax code, reducing the deficit, and getting at least a little spending out of it.  But he didn’t.

At first I just thought he was a very bad politician–simply didn’t know how to read the tea leaves and get a deal.  But it seems to be a pattern.  When I see Keystone Pipeline, I see the same kind of thing.  Mr. Obama hinted that he might approve the pipeline a few months back as part of broader infrastructure upgrade (translation:  I might give you Republicans your cherished Keystone Pipeline if you give me a large spending increase that I can steer toward favored infrastructure projects).  But once again, I see little action to try to work the deal.

Assume for a moment that there is at least some substance to what I’ve written above.  How did this happen, and how do we avoid it going forward?  I think the big reason is that Mr. Obama had no experience–ZERO–at actually leading an organization of any size where he would have to build consensus among conflicting parties.  In my Air Force career, we had a deliberate process of building leadership experiences, such that less successful leaders were culled prior to getting to higher positions of authority.  If you are unwilling to work with others, you would not be promoted to higher positions of leadership.  The analogue in government would be those with prior executive experience, such as a governor or even a big city.  As an electorate, we never should have put someone into that position who was so fundamentally unprepared.  Some that are unprepared can learn on the job, but Mr. Obama has not chosen to respond when corrected by subsequent electoral results, or to listen to poll results on his policies, but if anything he is doubling down.  His base may like it, but it makes for terrible leadership of the country.

So what are the implications of this?  Obviously we don’t want to make this mistake again.  From my perspective, I would not be a supporter of Sen Cruz of Texas for the Republican nomination, for similar reasons.  Even among conservatives without executive experience, I see little of the pragmatism that is essential to leading a diverse society.  Pragmatism often takes a bad name–justifiably when that is the sole philosophy–but at the end of the day we can’t make the best be the enemy of the good in a pluralistic society.  Rand Paul seems much better in this respect than Senator Cruz.  Yet, there are better alternatives, which is why I think Scott Walker is being seen so positively by conservatives:  he has the executive leadership experience, he has demonstrated his ability to get things done, sometimes even pragmatically, and yet being essentially conservative.  Most conservatives are beginning to coalesce around the idea that we don’t need another Reagan so much as we need someone with the backbone and willingness to get things done.

Over on the Democratic side, this is why Hillary Clinton would be much better than an Elizabeth Warren.   While I don’t especially like the results, she at least has experience leading a large organization with competing factions (while Secretary of State).  And its highly likely that she is willing to take political counsel for ultimate partisan goals, just like her husband Mr. Clinton.

So please–no more ideologues in the White House.

PS: For the critics of my post that find offense of my characterization of Mr. Obama as an ideologue–that may be fair.  But specifically how would you characterize Mr. Obama’s unwillingness to work with others?  The only other answer I can come up with is what Democrats privately say–that he is simply incompetent.  But I don’t buy that directly; to the extent he is incompetent seems to be because he is ideologically driven.