Obama's Decision-Making - Case Study Example

Decision making Presidents invite extremely ambitious, smart people to serve in the White House, but the advice quality that the president gets entirely depend on how s/he utilizes the existing talent. Chief executives face daunting challenges in measuring the onslaught of information, judging their subordinates perspective, and ensuring that they receive the correct advice depending on presidential perspective instead of their subordinates’ priorities. Political scientists who keenly study presidential decision making techniques have ended up considering numerous factors as central to understanding White House organization and the process; the extent of multiple advocacy, the extent of centralization and the application of honest brokers in managing advice to the president. This article has poured much light in examining President Obama’s decision-making technique with respect to the above mentioned factors and has presented several scenarios in illustrating them; detainee policy, economic policy and decision making in the Afghanistan war. In most occasions, presidents have dealt with the problems of obtaining useful information and advice in a number of ways. To be certain that they get advice from a wide perspective instead of necessarily limited perspective of their cabinet secretaries who happen to be advocates for only their departments, presidents have widened their White House staff members and used them as their ground advisors. For the purpose of ensuring that they do not make hasty decisions and ignore vital considerations, other presidents have insisted on an orderly deliberation process that entails opposing points of view and various policy choices before concluding on crucial decisions. Some have gone ahead to appoint “honest brokers” to their part of staffs to certify that no imperative perspective from their Cabinet secretaries or staffers will go unattended to. Mr. Barrack Obama continued to centralize policy advice in the White House and maintained multiple advocacies in deliberation of policies. However, the President did not appoint honest brokers but opted to control policy making details on his own. The Cuban Missile Crisis reveals how President J.F Kennedy resisted the pressure from almost all his advisors, including his blood brother Robert, to wipe out a Soviet ruled surface to air missile site after it happen to shoot down an American reconnaissance plane. It seems that J.F Kennedy is the only person in the room who fully contemplates the corollaries of a U.S military attack on Cuba (Stuckey 554). According to the case studies that have been observed, President Barrack Obama has a first class intellect, but a disposition that according to the case studies reveals, appears ill-suited to acting with urgency and decisiveness needed to deal with crisis both internally and externally. Mr. Barrack Obama appears to be cool and does not make hasty decisions. Obama personally continued the trend of consolidating policy making within White House, and the president seemed to espouse the deliberative multiple advocacy that is favored by presidential decision making students. But Obama did not seem to make use of such honest brokers in most of his reflections during his first 2 years in office. Alexander George in his book titled “President Decision making in Foreign Policy”, argued that the role of honest broker (custodian manager) can be used as a vital component in ensuring multiple advocacy in advising Mr. President. The honest broker usually decides for the president and warrants that deliberations comprise advisors poised in power and the resources, conveys new advisors and altered channels of information if obligatory, and organizes for autonomous analyses of the principles of the discuss. Obama Usually makes big decisions but expects most of his advisors to speak up at the end of it. The Cuban Missile Crisis remains to be one of the most severe and war-threatening skirmish of the cold war, portrays one advantage in terms of crisis management. One advantage is that it availed the best solution for crisis management. One major disadvantage is that force is not all that is needed in ending diplomatic wrangles. Regarding the three cases, president decision making approach changes the way things work. One major advantage of Obama’s decision making style is that equally important, his opinions are central to the view of the public in regard to the leadership of the president’s qualities and their assumption is that these qualities are positive and ended up to good decision making (Stuckey, Mary 554). In other terms, the President is involving while making most of his decisions. One major demerit is that at times may present when the public put their interest at the forefront for their own benefit hence undermining the president’s effort in making own decisions regarding external issues. Obama’s decision making style takes time and may deem unnecessary in times of emergency. Before the president makes any vital decision, in most cases s/he needs the blessing from the congress, courts, Bureaucracy and the media. The United States Constitution has divided the external policy powers existing between the president and the Congress that both share when it comes to decision making. The legislative and the executive both play a vital role that are usually different but overlap when broadly looked at. Both the branches have continuing opportunities to change and initiate decision making by the president, and the interaction existing between them continue indefinitely in the entire life of president’s decision making. Congress may support president’s decision or find a way of changing it. In most occasions, the congress usually supports the president, but it usually makes significant alliterations in his decision in the process of approving them. The executive branch may also seek to alter congress decision after supporting the president, this implies that the executive also has a say in whatever the president decides. The media always represent the public. The views made by the public reach the White House through media. If the president is to rely on the public while making decisions, then s/he has to work with what the media present. Given the stiff trajectory of centralized policy making in the presidency, president Obama’s endless of the centralizing trend would be unremarkable. Obama has faced several political pressures to cease from his style of management. All the White House staff members reflect their president’s value, and President Barrack Obama’s White House staff reinforced his tendencies toward centralization, personal control and careful deliberation of the policy details. Just like others presidents, Obama penciled advice on all major verdicts straight into the White House. One surprising fact is that, initially he intended to delegate major legal decision making to the Attorney General holder. Political pressure mounted to an extent of desisting from delegating the same. Careful and at times lengthy, deliberation marked Obama’s style of decision making. He maintained multiple advocacies by needing his staffers to argue their cases right in his presence, as when he necessitated that unorthodox perspectives on military and economic policy be aired in person. Obama was criticized generally for taking so much time in deciding whether and how much to escalate the Afghanistan war. But his personal time the he spent on a chain of meetings with his NSC and some of the military leaders showcased his determination not to hurry into major additional commitments of the United States troops. Possibly the most striking characteristic of president Obama’s personal decision making technique was his own involvement in policy details. Declining the use of an honest broker, either in principle or due to personalities of the staffers he opts. Obama on his own delved deeply into major policies of his main administration. Notably, all of Obama’s crucial policy decisions shifted his policies in a moderate course, that is, far away from the cravings of Democratic Party base of and toward the midpoint of the political gamut. He retorted to political gravity on convict policy by determining to deploy military commissions for some trials and indefinite detention for some detainees. The president rejected calls to nationalize banks to let the auto industry giant GM and Chrysler fail. He resisted calls to reduce U.S policies in Afghanistan but never gave the military as many troops as they demanded. Work Cited Stuckey, Mary E. Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and the National Agenda. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2008. Print. Read More