Saturday, August 13, 2016

A633.1.2.RB_MedleyKim: From FDR to Feeling the Bern: Has Leadership Come Full Circle?

From FDR to Feeling the Bern: Has Leadership Come Full Circle?

            Today, a reflective walk down memory lane brings alive numerous conversations with beloved grandparents abut famous fireside chats and radio remarks that sought to comfort and embrace a crippled country. Parents of this generation would find the same qualities in the fourth United States’ President to lose his life to an assassin’s bullet. The Gipper brought “Morning to America” once more; and, today, millennials prefer to ‘Feel the Bern”. Obolensky (2010) states, “We hold our leaders account more now than we have done” (p. 4). A statement with which many may agree; however, as Obolensky (2010) observes, our view of leadership has changed little since the days of Egyptian pharaohs; yet, our knowledge; and, the technology that has delivered that knowledge has changed dramatically in the few short decades since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) fireside chats and today’s arena’s filled with Bernie Sanders’ supporters. Given the sweeping governmental programs instituted by FDR and those offered by Sanders, it is perhaps easy to see how the leadership pendulum is preparing to swing once again.

            According to Yukl (2013), “Leaders… care about people as well as economic outcomes, and they have a longer-term perspective with regard to objectives and strategies” (p. 6). Listen to anyone from FDR’s era and those grandparents will tell stories as did mine. As outlined by A & E Networks (2016a), FDR took office at a time when twenty-five percent of the nation’s workforce was without work. A collection of experimental programs, collectively known as the “New Deal”, had as its primary purpose the daunting task of restoring “dignity and prosperity” to Americans (A&E, 2016a). Sound familiar? These governmental programs would forever change the relationship with the American people and the federal government; one, that asked what the government could do for me, and, one that would be later questioned (A&E, 2016).

            The generation born to those who came to rely on those fireside radio chats to bring national and world news into their living rooms would watch news delivered by trusted anchors, like Cronkite, amidst a storm of black and white snow, complete with revolving, horizontal lines. Those who gave birth to the baby-boomers, elected the first Catholic as our leader, President John F. Kennedy. He led the Nation’s race to the moon and in his televised inaugural address, he challenged the next generation to ask what they could do for their country. Obolensky (2010) notes “the more we know, the less certain we are” (p. 16). Kennedy’s administration saw the height of uncertainty between the U.S. and the then U.S.S.R. We had emerged as a nation that had resoundingly defeated Nazism and had survived a Great Depression; yet, the quest for “nuclear weapons delivery” brought about levels of uncertainty resulting in horrific tragedies, such as the death of the crew of Apollo I and the days of uncertainty with Apollo 13; and, still American taxpayers were convinced of the need to go to the moon (p. 17). We lived in Port St. John, Florida at the height of the Apollo Space Missions. I saw how vested my parents were in their leader. 

            Baby boomers turned right and agreed with Reagan; we need not return to the economic disaster known as the Carter Administration where wearing a sweater, as opposed to increasing the thermostat was not only encouraged; it was seen as brilliant. I must say, Archie Bunker's raspberry to Carter captured the sentiment is a succinct way all understood.  Although Kennedy’s speech had been broadcast and folks turned on black and white televisions across the country; by the time the Reagan Revolution was in full swing, the technology of color television enhanced Reagan’s leadership style. He brought Madison Avenue in, assembled a “Tuesday Team”; and, “Morning Again in America” was born (A&E, 2016b). The imagery of skydivers, equipped with red, white, and blue parachutes, streaking across a pale, blue California sky, while the leader of the free-world spoke, only served to enforce the image that America needed to return to the days of yore, when we as a country did not question our self; or, our leaders (A&E, 2016b). Borrowing a line from Enigma, a “return to innocence”, is the underpinning of today’s “Make America Great Again”, trumpeted by millions. The next generation will write the pages of history to see if Bernie Sanders self-avowed socialist policies bring us full circle to the days of FDR; or, return us as that city shining on a hill.

            Bernie Sanders filled arenas with promises of free everything, including the kitchen sink. Trump promises trade that is fair to the U.S.; and, Mexico will build the wall. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat have taken politics and remarks from leaders into the twenty-first century. The very volley of left and right promises underscores that which Obolensky first notes, “leadership is mainly seen as something ‘done’ by the few to the many” (p. 18). Today, that volley is captured by a host of twenty-four-hour news stations owned by a collective few. We have had forty-four U.S. Presidents since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Radio brought FDR into our living rooms. Black and white televisions captured a mourning nation. I still recall my mother sobbing as Kennedy’s funeral procession passed. Reagan’s ability to use the advanced technologies of the 1980s forever sealed images of Dukakis in an army tank and Carter’s sweater initiative into the fabric of Americana. Today, YouTube allows millennials to ask again what the government will do for them. Sadly, we view our President as we viewed Ramesses the Great, a single, powerful leader who can change our plight, our economic path, our weaponry advancement, and even our national conversation with one well-written and choreographed speech.

            As an observer of politics, there is a sea change; yet, there is more of a clash of political ideology than I can recall. The ‘everyone gets a trophy’ generation are quite comfortable with the programs of Sanders; while others recognize that neither Kennedy nor Reagan would be welcomed by their respective political parties, today. My grandparents and parents always reinforced nothing in this world is free; but, free college and health care sound great to a generation who find difficulty in coping with the inability to locate the Pokémon Go creature of the day. Yukl (2013) defines leadership as a process designed to influence others such that understanding and agreement as to what must be done to address needs and how “facilitating individual and collective efforts” can be accomplished so that shared objectives may be achieved (p. 7). While my view of political leadership has remained as stagnant as the mummies in the Valley of the Kings; the one-hundred and eighty-degree weather vane swing our nation seemingly experiences every four or eight years stems from that which Obolensky (2010) sites as an important ingredient for adaptive leadership, an appreciation of Tao and the balanced connection that exists between the extreme right and left of leadership.

References
A&E Networks. (2016a). New Deal. History.com. Retrieved from
http://www.history.com/topics/new-deal
A&E Networks. (2016b). Ronald Reagan Videos: Moring in America. History.com.
Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/ronald-reagan/videos/morning-in-america
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. (2nd ed.). London, UK: Gower/
            Ashgate.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.



No comments:

Post a Comment