Inside Obama's Presidency

I believe that the character type most closely represented by President Obama is passive-positive. A passive-positive president is one who, due to his/her search for affection, tries to be very cooperative and agreeable. This type of president is characterized by the hope that they exhibit, but they also battle low self-esteem and superficial optimism. Obama resembles this typology in many of the actions he takes. One extremely notable example was his easygoing reaction to the banker scandal, as seen in the Frontline documentary. Though he had set up an excellent opportunity to reprimand the bankers when he held the meeting with them, he instead told the men he was there to help, so that he would not become involved in conflict. His reaction here clearly shows his fear of disagreement and putting himself in a bad position, and demonstrates Barber’s passive-positive character type. Another example of Obama’s typology is his attempt to negotiate with Boehner when faced with the task of combating the financial crisis that resulted in the fiscal cliff. Obama sought out Boehner so that the men could be in agreeance with legislation, and this willingness to cooperate is definitely a passive-positive characteristic.

Ultimately, it can be seen through the failures that have resulted from submissive instances such as these that Obama’s typology is not suitable for today’s political climate. In the article “Power Lessons for Obama” on The Atlantic’s website, a reference was made to political scientist Stephen Skowronek’s belief that the context of the political time period plays a role in a president’s ability to utilize his inherent powers (which, as Neustadt believed, are key factors in a president’s overall ability to persuade). In today’s divided political climate, a passive-positive president such as Obama is weakened in this utilization– instead, a more active president is needed. The divided political climate is much more suited to a strong, directed leader that would be able to effectively use their inherent powers, since they are primarily concerned with the advancement of their own political goals and do not yield to roadblocks such as partisan division. A more compromised-focused president like Obama is limited in his usage of these powers because of his affection-seeking personality, and he is stretched too thin by trying to appeal to everybody. Therefore, voters should look for an active-positive president in 2016. With high self-esteem, valuation of productivity, and well-defined personal goals that propel the person to accomplishing policy, the president would act as a firm leader who can set goals and accomplish them. Though they may sometimes experience difficulty in seeing things a different way, an intense focus can potentially lead people down a certain path and help direct people toward a common goal.

I agree with Kayla in her thought that voters probably cannot use Barber’s theory. As she states in her response, you cannot make any initial judgments about someone using this theory (especially before seeing them perform in office) because successful presidents exhibit an array of personalities that can be useful in different circumstances. The theory is, however, good for examining past and current presidencies. With the help of Barber and Neustadt’s theories, we are able to determine how powerful a president really is – and in the case of Obama, it can be determined that his personality is ineffective for the time period, thus weakening himself and his abilities to persuade and thus pass legislation.