Pay attention to leadership style

This week gave us a chance to contrast the leadership styles on both the Republican and Democratic sides of the presidential race. Leadership style isn't the only important basis for choosing a president, but it is a factor we can readily evaluate. Here are some example styles we see in this year's race:

• The inspiring leader, someone who uses their charisma, life story, and values to set a clear direction. This kind of candidate transcends the limited power of the Federal government by motivating us to help change the world for the better, far beyond what the government can possibly do.
• The technician, someone who wants to be CEO of the Federal government and understands the business inside and out. This kind of candidate tries to convince us that they can make the government work more effectively and efficiently, and that they won't make any big mistakes.
• The ideologue, someone who read a very convincing book written by someone who has never been in government, and is now completely certain they have the simple formula to solve every problem.
• The complainer, who can list everything that is wrong in the world and can identify one or more groups that are responsible for all these ills. There's an implication that the candidate might have solutions to the problems, but these solutions are rarely stated, leaving it up to the voter's imagination.
• The empty suit, who has no particular skills or direction but tries to win by not offending anyone, by being a blank screen on which the voters can project their desires.

The best object lesson on leadership style came to us this week courtesy of Tom Tancredo. From the articles in the newspaper over the past couple of days, you might have thought Tancredo had died. The eulogies from all sides of the political spectrum described at worst a bigot, at best an ineffective seat-warmer in the House of Representatives. In fact, Mr. Tancredo is still among the living, and will be a sitting member of Congress for another year.

Tancredo made a show of meeting with the other Republican candidates for president, looking for someone who would "carry on the fight" for him so he could drop out of the presidential race. He decided on Mitt Romney, and gave his endorsement. Romney, who was pointedly absent from Tancredo's news conference, said shortly after that he appreciated the endorsement, even though "I don't agree with him on every issue." Romney was not specific on the areas of agreement or disagreement, and quickly changed the subject. He effectively blew off Tancredo and committed to nothing, thus tossing Tancredo's years-long quest onto the scrap heap.

Tancredo made this momentous (for him) mistake because he didn't understand leadership styles. In the above list, you can easily recognize Tancredo as a combination of ideologue and complainer. To find someone to carry on the fight for him, what he needed most was someone compatible with his libertarian and nativist ideology, who hated Mexicans as much as Tancredo. But Romney isn't any of these things. Romney is the classic empty suit, whose whole campaign strategy is to bob and weave so no opponent can get a glove on him.

Tancredo could have, and should have, known that Romney would respond in this way. Maybe he was trying to draw Romney out as a nativist, but that would be a long shot, and would destroy Romney's campaign since he would no longer be viewed as neutral in Republican ideological wars. Tancredo didn't really have any better choices. Ron Paul has Tancredo's libertarian streak but is a fellow fringe candidate and doesn't hate Mexicans. Fred Thompson hates Mexicans but isn't libertarian. Perhaps the best chance Tancredo might have had would be to announce a "draft Lou Dobbs" movement, since Dobbs is both an ideologue and complainer, but has a much bigger megaphone.

Here in Douglas County, Republicans would be wise to pay attention to leadership styles of the remaining candidates. I was looking through campaign finance reports yesterday, and noticed that the leading Douglas County fund-raiser among Republicans, by a mile, is Romney. These donors might not remember another classic empty suit candidate in the 2000 election, one named George W. Bush. As we now know, Bush has presided over the biggest expansion of the size and scope of government in US history. One doesn't have to be an advocate of government spending to become a profligate spender. For an empty suit, who doesn't want to offend anyone, offering money is the path of least resistance. If Romney is elected, more government expansion is inevitable. Republicans who donate to Romney or vote for him in the caucus should have their eyes wide open that this is what they are voting for. Pay attention to what he does, not necessarily what he says.