The cult of decisiveness in U.S. politics

Measure of a Nation

By TED ANTHONY

AP National Writer

updated 6:02 p.m. ET April 4, 2008

EDINBORO, Pa. - On a wintry morning, in a college town not far from Lake Erie, a coup is brewing. "You're going to take over the country today, brothers and sisters," Werner Lange, an assistant professor of sociology, tells his Contemporary Social Problems class.

On this day, 20 undergraduates at Edinboro State University will take a crack at being the president of the United States and members of the Cabinet, at the whim of a computer game called Democracy. Its box asks them: "Do YOU have what it takes to run a country?"

President Mary Cornwell steps up first. She is brimming with conviction and decisiveness after consulting with her "Cabinet" of fellow students. Next is President Valerie Amick. Her strategy: Confer, listen ... then decide for herself. "You have to listen and negotiate," she acknowledges, "but we're also human beings and we think our decision is going to be the best."

They seem so sure of themselves, these suddenly anointed leaders in ski hats and hooded Steeler sweatshirts and Ugg boots, guzzling 20-ounce Dr Peppers before lunch. Just 26 minutes of power and they're ready to render decisions that would affect an entire nation.

What do you expect, though? To be an American in 2008 is to be born into a heritage of individual decisiveness — of rapid-fire answers and always implied, if hasty, certitude. The instant analysis of the on-air chattering class and the gut-reaction blogosphere demands nothing less.

Where They Stand   Red, white, and green: Democrats on the environment   Democrats and the economy   McCain on the economy   Where They Stand: Candidates on Iraq   Immigration lies low in campaign — for now   Changing attitudes on immigration   Can politics heal health care?   It's still the economy, stupid   Where candidates stand on education

The students understand this principle instinctively: Decisiveness is the starting premise. Not a single "I'm not sure" in this crowd. Only once does hesitation surface, from the mouth of President Mike Tripp. "One person," he says, "can't be responsible for everyone's decisions."

Sensible, but wishful thinking. Because in America, that's exactly how we cast our president — as the personification of national decision-making. "I'm the decider," George W. Bush famously said in 2006, and he was, in many ways, correct.

Decision 2008
Every four years, Americans by the millions delegate their decision-making upward. When we evaluate candidates, decisiveness is one of the words that bubbles up most frequently. Be it a John McCain, a Hillary Clinton or an Barack Obama, our new leader must render decisions on our behalf that are swift, strong and sure. But when we demand decisiveness in our leaders, what do we mean?

Is it about consistency? Certitude? About pushing the button and not looking back? Or is it about consultation and consensus, about input and weighing options? Can inaction be a strong and viable decision? Is "flip-flopping" just a politicized term used to unfairly denounce evolved thinking? Is there room in America for flexibility?

"You have to be creative and adaptable," says Lee Iacocca, the storied Chrysler chief who secured his place in American culture by projecting an aura of tough, enlightened decisiveness.

"Sometimes, you change your decisions," Iacocca says. "Because the world changes."

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

NYT: Bush, McCain diverging in foreign policy? Obama urges Iran to accept EU nuke proposal Analysis: Echoes of Clinton's campaign in race McCain urges China to free Tibetans Nonprofits walk fine line on political activity Bush policy shifts leave Obama without a foil McCain may act soon on VP pick Newsweek: McCain and Obama miss the real crisis Hagel chides McCain, Obama on Iraq Brownstein: The risk of Obama rapture Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: