3rd Debate: Leadership

The third debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney focused on where the candidates stand in regards to issues of foreign policy.  When examining the debate through a leadership lens, both candidates present similar positions in defining this term.   The candidates spent the majority of their time addressing technical problems, which refer to issues that occur within the here and now of society.  These types of issues are typically solved through policies, procedures, or other one-time changes that can create a quick fix.  I began to notice a problem with the candidates’ stances on leadership in a number of the issues addressed, such as Romney’s desire to have Muslims reject their own extremist attitudes, which are known as adaptive problems.  Adaptive problems often concern the values, morals, and ideologies of people and require much more than additional policies to produce change.  Both President Obama and Governor Romney depicted leadership as a term that develops through the use of organizing and mobilizing.  In some instances, this epitomizes what it means to be a leader and have referent power.  In other cases, such as those of adaptive problems, it will take much more than organizing and mobilizing to create new attitudes and produce desired results.  In my attempt to view the debate as objectively as possible, I started to notice a difference between the two candidates.  I felt that Governor Romney approached the debate with the notion of “controversy with civility”, while President Obama showed a desire for “conflict”.  These differing ideas may be due to the candidates’ performances in the two previous debates, but they still proved to be interesting.  Governor Romney showed controversy with civility by developing an understanding of differing perspectives in order to try to create a solution for the problems.  Although he stuck to his ideas and principles, Romney weighed these beliefs against the suggestions of President Obama without immediately rejecting their potential.  On the other hand, President Obama proved to be more aggressive through his focus on conflict.  With conflict, two opposing sides are competing without accounting for what or why the other perspective may have developed.  From a leadership perspective, effectiveness ultimately depends on an overall objective that is congruent to a person’s approach to the problem, as well as values.  Leadership philosophies also became evident through certain claims made by each candidate, as well as their attempts to refute those facts.  When Governor Romney referred to the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship that was established in Massachusetts, which provides student’s with a scholarship to a four-year public institution within the state, President Obama disputed this fact.  President Obama stated that the scholarship was founded by administration that preceded Governor Romney.  According to Glen Johnson, a blogger for Political Intelligence, the scholarship was a proposal by Governor Romney.  Another disagreement occurred when President Obama quoted Governor Romney as saying that we should still have troops in Iraq.  Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post states that Governor Romney did not technically say this, though it can be inferred from a speech that he gave at the Virginia Military Institute on October 8.  Both candidates present different facets of the truth, but the interpretation of these facts ultimately becomes the responsibility of the audience.  I think that both President Obama and Governor Romney helped themselves through their performances in the third and final debate.  For viewers who want a style of leadership that incorporates aspects of management and organization, I think that both candidates have a desire to solve problems through policy-making and legislation.