GW--Realist or Idealist?

This question is posed as a dilemna for President Bush by James O'Toole in the Sept. Issue of FastCompany magazine. The article is not available online yet, but worth a stop by your nearest magazine stand. Mr. O'Toole uses President Bush's admiring eulogy of Ronald Reagan to examine how GW's ideology does/doesn't match his actions compared to other leaders of the past.

While Reagan was an unabashed optimist/idealist whose actions personified his beliefs, Mr. O'Toole claims that Bush "waffles" between the two and is probably most comfortable as a realist due to his business/MBA background.

I enjoyed the article because I believe the Bush has the same potential to "walk his talk," but leaves himself exposed when he strays for perceived political favor.

Excerpts from the article:

"Realists and idealists can both be effective leaders. But one cannot be both at once. And that cuts to the heart of Bush's problem. In the international arena, he first offered realist arguments for invading Iraq (the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction), then switched to idealist motivations (bringing democracy to the Mideast). Domestically, he pushed the idealist notion that taxes should be reduced to shrink government--but later suggested, realistically, that a tax cut would act as an antirecession stimulus. Such waffling has undercut the level of trust in Bush's administration, even within his own party. Which is why Forty-three must choose one philosophy of leadership or the other--or risk not just reelection but the trust of those who follow him."

"...Corporate realists make no pretense about having 'higher' principles that might interfere with their doing 'whatever it takes' to serve the interests of shareholders. In fact, in both business and politics, idealism has proven the tougher path. Only a few leaders--Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela--have been able to stick to a high moral principle, much less identify one worthy of adherence. Too many idealists turn out to be tyrants like Stalin and Mao, rigidly committed to immoral ends. True idealism, like Reagan's, requires habits of character formed over a lifetime, often in the crucible of challenging events.

Mr. O'Toole summarizes:

The leadership lesson for GW--and for any leader--is simple: Followers don't much care if leaders are realists or idealists, but they distrust inconstancy. To make a mark in history, as Reagan did, Bush must decide which one he is. Doing so will require moral courage, because it entails commitment to a predictable mode of behavior. And that, ultimately, is what followers seek in their leaders. As Bush said: "Ronald Reagan believed...in the courage and triumph of free men. And we believe it, all the more, because we saw that courage in him."